Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Setting Limits FairlyCan we learn to share medical resources?$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Norman Daniels and James E. Sabin

Print publication date: 2002

Print ISBN-13: 9780195149364

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195149364.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 24 May 2018

The Legitimacy Problem and Fair Process

The Legitimacy Problem and Fair Process

Chapter:
(p.25) 3 THE LEGITIMACY PROBLEM AND FAIR PROCESS
Source:
Setting Limits Fairly
Author(s):

Norman Daniels

James E. Sabin

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195149364.003.0003

This chapter substantiates the claim that we need an account of fair process, showing that commonly advocated alternative accounts of fairness and legitimacy cannot work, at least when taken by themselves. It briefly reviews and rejects four distinct alternatives. The market alternative—called “market accountability”—insists that there is no special problem of fairness or legitimacy, provided that we make available a market for insurance in which people legitimize the limits health plans employ by choosing—buying—the plan. The Philosopher's Alternative says that the principles of justice, or some middle-level principles, give us clear enough answers to questions about distributive fairness to determine if fair outcomes are present. The Majority Rule solution suggests that we resolve disputes about limits the way we resolve many policy disputes, through direct or indirect democratic processes that ultimately rely on voting. The fourth alternative—the Public Attitudes approach—relies not on voting but on scientifically surveying the public to find out its moral views on limits. All these alternatives contain valuable clues to, or elements of, a plausible solution to the legitimacy problem, but taken by themselves, they are inadequate. Because these solutions fail by themselves, we need the account of fair process that is proposed in Chapter 4.

Keywords:   health care, market accountability, distributive principles, majority rule, fair process

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .