Show simple item record

dc.creatorMenzel, Paul T.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T18:34:10Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T18:34:10Zen
dc.date.created1992-02en
dc.date.issued1992-02en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of Medicine and Philosophy. 1992 Feb; 17(1): 33-57.en
dc.identifier.issn0360-5310en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Equity,+Autonomy,+and+Efficiency:+What+Health+Care+System+Should+We+have?&title=Journal+of+Medicine+and+Philosophy.++&volume=17&issue=1&pages=33-57&date=1992&au=Menzel,+Paul+T.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/737115en
dc.description.abstractThe U.S. has a wide range of options in choosing a health care system. Rational choice of a system depends on analysis and prioritization of the basic moral goals of equitable access to all citizens, the just sharing of financial costs between well and ill, respect for the values and choices of subscribers and patients, and efficiency in the delivery of costworthy care. These moral goals themselves, however, tell us little about what health care system the United States should have. Equitable access does not demand a level and scope of care for the poor equal to that rationally chosen by the middle class, and there are ways within mixed systems, though not easy ways, to achieve a fair distribution of costs between well and ill. Despite pluralistic systems' apparent advantage in allowing subscribers to choose their own forms of rationing, problems in translating serious long-term subscriber choices into actual medical practice may be greater in pluralistic than in unitary systems. Final choice of a system hinges primarily on peculiar historical facts about U.S. political culture, not on moral principle.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:KIE/36070en
dc.subjectAlternativesen
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectBeneficenceen
dc.subjectCaringen
dc.subjectCosts and Benefitsen
dc.subjectCultureen
dc.subjectEconomicsen
dc.subjectEmploymenten
dc.subjectEvaluationen
dc.subjectFederal Governmenten
dc.subjectFinancial Supporten
dc.subjectFormsen
dc.subjectFreedomen
dc.subjectGoalsen
dc.subjectGovernmenten
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.subjectHealth Careen
dc.subjectHealth Care Deliveryen
dc.subjectHealth Insuranceen
dc.subjectIndigentsen
dc.subjectIndustryen
dc.subjectInsuranceen
dc.subjectJusticeen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subjectMandatory Programsen
dc.subjectMoral Policyen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectPolicy Analysisen
dc.subjectPublic Policyen
dc.subjectResource Allocationen
dc.subjectSocioeconomic Factorsen
dc.subjectValue of Lifeen
dc.subjectValuesen
dc.subjectVoluntary Programsen
dc.titleEquity, Autonomy, and Efficiency: What Health Care System Should We Have?en
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2019 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885