Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Meaning, Medicine, and Merit

  • Andreas L. Mogensen (a1)

Abstract

Given the inevitability of scarcity, should public institutions ration healthcare resources so as to prioritize those who contribute more to society? Intuitively, we may feel that this would be somehow inegalitarian. I argue that the egalitarian objection to prioritizing treatment on the basis of patients’ usefulness to others is best thought of as semiotic: i.e. as having to do with what this practice would mean, convey, or express about a person's standing. I explore the implications of this conclusion when taken in conjunction with the observation that semiotic objections are generally flimsy, failing to identify anything wrong with a practice as such and having limited capacity to generalize beyond particular contexts.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Email: andreas.mogensen@philosophy.ox.ac.uk

References

Hide All

1 Childress, James, ‘Putting Patients First in Organ Allocation: An Ethical Analysis of the US Debate’, Cambridge Quarterly of Health Ethics 10 (2001), pp. 365–76.

2 Broome, John, ‘Fairness’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91 (1990), pp. 87101.

3 Thanks to an anonymous referee for suggesting this example.

4 Skitka, Linda and Tetlock, Philip, ‘Allocating Scarce Resources: A Contingency Model of Distributive Justice’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28 (1992), pp. 491522.

5 McKie, John and Richardson, Jeff, ‘Social Preferences for the Inclusion of Indirect Benefits in the Evaluation of Publicly Funded Health Services: Results from an Australian Survey’, Health Economics, Policy and Law 6 (2011), pp. 449–68.

7 Arneson, Richard, ‘Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare’, Philosophical Studies 56 (1989), pp. 7793; Arneson, Richard, ‘Luck Egalitarianism Interpreted and Defended’, Philosophical Topics 32 (2004), pp. 120; Cohen, G. A., Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cambridge, MA, 2008); Dworkin, Ronald, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA, 2002); Rakowski, Eric, Equal Justice (Oxford, 1993); Segall, Shlomi, Why Inequality Matters: Luck Egalitarianism, its Meaning and Value (Cambridge, 2016); Tan, Kok-Chor, ‘A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism’, Journal of Philosophy 105 (2008), pp. 665–90.

8 Parfit, Derek, Equality or Priority? The Lindley Lecture (Lawrence, KS, 1991).

9 Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford, 1974), pp. 30–3; Kamm, F. M., ‘Harming Some to Save Others’, Philosophical Studies 57 (1989), pp. 227–60.

10 Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford, 1983).

11 Walzer, Spheres of Justice, p. 75.

12 Brock, Dan, ‘Separate Spheres and Indirect Benefits’, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1 (2003); Broome, ‘Fairness’; Kornhauser, Lewis and Sager, Lawrence, ‘Just lotteries’, Social Science Information 27 (1988), pp. 483516.

13 Henning, Tim, ‘From Choice to Chance? Saving People, Fairness, and Lotteries’, The Philosophical Review 124 (2015), pp. 169206.

14 Anderson, Elizabeth, ‘What is the Point of Equality?’, Ethics 109 (1999), pp. 287337; Anderson, Elizabeth, ‘The Fundamental Disagreement between Luck Egalitarians and Relational Egalitarians’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (2010), pp. 123; Scheffler, Samuel, ‘What is Egalitarianism?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (2003), pp. 539; Scheffler, Samuel, ‘The Practice of Equality’, Social Equality: On What It Means To Be Equals, ed. Fourie, Carina, Schuppert, Fabian, and Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo (Oxford, 2015), pp. 2144.

15 Anderson, ‘What is the Point of Equality?’, p. 313.

16 Lippert-Rasmussen, Compare Kasper and Lauridsen, Sigurd, ‘Justice and the Allocation of Healthcare Resources: Should Indirect, Non-health Effects Count?’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 13 (2010), pp. 237–46.

17 Simon Blackburn, ‘Am I Right?’, The New York Times 21 Feb. 1999; Philip Pettit, ‘Doing unto Others’, Times Literary Supplement, 25 June 1999.

18 Scanlon, T. M., What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA, 1998), p. 391, n. 21.

19 Thurgood Marshall, ‘Concurrence-dissent’, in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985).

20 Grice, H. P., ‘Utterer's Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning’, Foundations of Language 4 (1968), pp. 225–42.

21 Anderson, Elizabeth and Pildes, Richard, Richard, , ‘Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (2000), pp. 1503–75.

22 Abell, Catharine, ‘Canny Resemblance’, Philosophical Review 118 (2009), pp. 183223; Hopkins, Richard, Picture, Image, and Experience: A Philosophical Inquiry (Cambridge, 1998); Hyman, John, ‘Depiction’, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 71 (2012), pp. 129–50; Peacocke, Christopher, ‘Depiction’, Philosophical Review 96 (1987), pp. 383410.

23 As per Abell, ‘Canny Resemblance’, Hopkins, Picture, Image, and Experience.

24 Hellman, Deborah, ‘Racial Profiling and the Meaning of Racial Categories’, Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, 2nd edn., ed. Cohen, A. I. and Wellman, C. H. (Malden, MA, 2014), pp. 232–43.

25 Eidelson, Compare Benjamin, Discrimination and Disrespect (Oxford, 2015), pp. 173222.

26 Hellman, ‘Racial Profiling and the Meaning of Racial Categories’, p. 237.

27 Goodman, Nelson, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis, IN, 1968), pp. 35.

28 Daniels, Norman, Just Health Care (Cambridge, 1985); Daniels, Norman, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge, 2007).

29 Walzer, Spheres of Justice, pp. 64–83.

30 Aneurin Bevan, ‘Proposals for a National Health Service’, Cabinet Memorandum, 13 December 1945, <http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-5-cp-45-339-39.pdf>.

31 Bevan, Aneurin, In Place of Fear (London, 1952), p. 76.

32 NHS Constitution for England, p. 3.

33 A notable exception being Miller, David, Principles of Social Justice (Cambridge, MA, 1999).

34 Bamfield, Louise and Horton, Tim, Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Economic Inequality (York, 2009).

35 McKie and Richardson, ‘Social Preferences for the Inclusion of Indirect Benefits’.

36 Boehm, Christopher, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge, MA, 1999).

37 Ball, Richard and Chernova, Kateryna, ‘Absolute Income, Relative Income, and Happiness’, Social Indicators Research 88 (2008), pp. 497529.

38 Marmot, Michael, ‘Health in an Unequal World’, The Lancet 368 (2006), pp. 2081–94.

39 Brennan, Jason and Jaworski, Peter Martin, ‘Markets without Symbolic Limits’, Ethics 125 (2015), pp. 1053–77.

40 Kamm, F. M., Morality Mortality, vol. 1: Death and Whom to Save From It (Oxford, 1993).

41 Brock, ‘Separate Spheres and Indirect Benefits’.

42 Cohen, G. A., Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 239–40; Parfit, Derek, On What Matters, vol. 1 (Oxford, 2011), pp. 212–13.

43 Horton, Joe, ‘The All or Nothing Problem’, Journal of Philosophy 114 (2017), pp. 94104; MacAskill, William, Doing Good Better: A Radical New Way to Make a Difference (London, 2015); Pummer, Theron, ‘Whether and Where to Give’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 44 (2016), pp. 7795; Singer, Peter, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas about Living Ethically (New Haven, CT, 2015).

44 Jamison, Dean, Gelband, Hellen, Horton, Susan, Jha, Prabhat, Laxminarayan, Ramanan, Mock, Charles, and Nugent, Rachel (eds.), Disease Control Priorities: Improving Health and Reducing Poverty (Washington D.C., 2018); Ord, Toby, ‘Considering Cost-Effectiveness: The Moral Perspective’, Priority Setting in Health: Building Institutions for Smarter Public Spending, ed. Glassman, Amanda and Chalkidou, Kalipso (Washington D.C., 2012), pp. 1519.

45 Piaget, Jean, The Child's Conception of the World, trans. Tomlinson, Joan and Tomlinson, Andrew (London, 1929).

46 Cimpian, Andrei and Salomon, Erika, ‘The Inherence Heuristic: An Intuitive Means of Making Sense of the World, and a Potential Precursor of Psychological Essentialism’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (2014), pp. 461–80; Gabbenesch, Howard, ‘The Perception of Social Conventionality by Children and Adults’, Child Development 61 (1990), pp. 2047–59.

47 For valuable comments on previous drafts of this article, I am grateful to Hilary Greaves, William MacAskill, Tom Sinclair, Christian Tarsney, and Teru Thomas, as well as the audience for my presentation at University College Dublin on 25 October 2018. I'd also like to thank two anonymous referees at Utilitas for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Meaning, Medicine, and Merit

  • Andreas L. Mogensen (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed