Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us. A Response to My Critics

• Authors: Tännsjö Torbjörn
• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

EN

The article provides answers to comments in this journal on my recent book, Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us (Oxford University Press, 2019). Did I address all of the relevant theories? Yes, I did. Was my argument underdeveloped in any respects? Yes, at least in one as I should perhaps have discussed contractual ethical thinking more carefully. I do so in this response. Moreover, the critical comments raised have helped me to clarify my argument in many ways, for which I thank my critics.

Keywords

EN

Utilitarianism Prioritarianism Sufficientarianism Contractualism Rawls Marginal Life-Extension Mental Health Maximin/Leximin

• Publisher: Instytut Filozofii - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
• Journal: Diametros
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 68
• Pages: 11

Dates

published

2021-10-13

Contributors

author

Tännsjö Torbjörn

• Stockholm University

References

• Arrhenius G. (2000), “An Impossibility Theorem for Welfarist Axiology,” Economics and Philosophy 16 (2): 247–266.
• Buchanan J.M. (1975), The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Casal P. (2007), “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough,” Ethics 117 (2): 296-327.
• Crisp R. (2003), “Equality, priority, and compassion,” Ethics 113 (4): 745–763.
• Gauthier D. (1986), Morals By Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Gibson Q. H. (2020), “Rawlsian Contractualism and Healthcare Allocation: A Response to Torbjörn Tännsjö,” Diametros 18 (68): 9–23.
• Goodin R. E. (2020), “Setting Health-Care Priorities: A Reply to Tännsjö,” Diametros 18 (68): 24–32.
• Herlitz A. (2020), “Review of Torbjörn Tännsjö, Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Economics and Philosophy 36 (3): 460–465.
• Manninen B. A. (2014), “A Kantian Defense of Abortion Rights with Respect for Intrauterine Life,” Diametros 39: 70–92.
• Nielsen L. (2021), “Defending Deontic Constraints and Prioritarianism: Two Remarks on Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Diametros 18 (68): 33–45.
• Parfi t, D. (2004) “Postscript,” [in:] The Repugnant Conclusion. Essays on Population Ethics, J. Ryberg and T. Tä nnsjö (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht: 257.
• Scanlon T.M. (1998), What We Owe to Each Other, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)/ London.
• Tännsjö T. (1998), Hedonistic Utilitarianism. A Defence, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
• Tännsjö T. (2015), Taking Life. Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.
• Tännsjö T. (2019), Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Zameska J. (2020), “The Sufficientarian Alternative: A Commentary on Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Diametros 18 (68): 46–59.
• Zuber S. et al. (2021), “What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion,” Utilitas, published online: 13 April 2021 doi:10.1017/S095382082100011X.

Identifiers

DOI

10.33392/diam.1756