title: Just health: replies and further thoughts.
abstract: This paper responds to discussion and criticism contained in a mini-symposium on Just health: meeting health needs fairly. The replies clarify existing positions and modify or develop others, specifically in response to the following: Thomas Schramme criticises the claim that health is of special importance because of its impact on opportunity, and James Wilson argues that healthcare is not of special importance if social determinants of health have a major causal impact on population health. Annette Rid is concerned that the relevance condition in accountability for reasonableness is unclear and does little work. Harald Schmidt aims to flesh out where an account of responsibility for health should go since one is under-developed in Just health. Michael Schefczyk and Susanne Brauer challenge aspects of the prudential lifespan account. Samia Hurst asks what impact a population view should have on clinician obligations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Room 1210D, Bldg 1, 665 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA. ndaniels@hsph.harvard.edu
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Daniels
mesh_terms: D001675:Bioethics; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006291:Health Policy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D011634:Public Health / Q000941:ethics*; D012935:Social Justice / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors