The right to preventive health care

The right to health care is a right to care that (a) is not too costly to the provider, considering the benefits it conveys, and (b) is effective in bringing about the level of health needed for a good human life, not necessarily the best health possible. These considerations suggest that, where possible, society has an obligation to provide preventive health care, which is both low cost and effective, and that health care regulations should promote citizens’ engagement in reasonable preventive health care practices.     

United States and Canadian approaches to justice in health care: A comparative analysis of health care systems and values

The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the basic ethical values underpinning national health care policies in the United States and Canada. We use the framework of ethical theory to name and elaborate ethical values and to facilitate moral reflection about health care reform. Section one describes historical and contemporary social contract theories and clarifies the ethical values associated with them. Sections two and three show that health care debates and health care systems in both countries reflect the values of this tradition; however, each nation interprets the tradition differently. In the U.S., standards of justice for health care are conceived as a voluntary agreement reached by self-interested parties. Canadians, by contrast, interpret the same justice tradition as placing greater emphasis on concern for others and for the community. The final section draws out the implications of these differences for future U.S. and Canadian health care reforms.     

Catholic health care in the United States: American pluralism and religious meanings.

This essay chronicles the development of Catholic health care in the United States during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. The author points to the religious pluralism and the respect for that pluralism as well as to the evangelical drive for conversion evident in Catholic hospitals. This essay is a phenomenological study of this commitment to pluralism and the evangelical impulse within the contexts of health care.     

The right to a decent minimum of health care

Buchanan examines, and finds inadequate, several philosophical approaches to justifying and specifying the content of a universal right to a decent minimum of health care: utilitarian arguments, Rawlsian ideal contract arguments, and Norman Daniels' equality of opportunity argument. Also rejecting the libertarian hypothesis that there is no right to a decent minimum of care, he contends that the claim that society should guarantee certain health care services can be supported by a pluralistic approach encompassing special right-claims, harm prevention, prudential arguments emphasizing public health benefits, and beneficence.     

Why the United States should adopt a single-payer system of health care finance

Although nothing could be less fashionable today than talk of comprehensive health care reform, the major problems of American health care have not gone away. Only a radical change in the way the U.S. finances health care--specifically, a single-payer system--will permit the achievement of universal coverage while keeping costs reasonably under control. Evidence from other countries, especially Canada, suggests the promise of this approach. In defending the single-payer approach, the author identifies several political and cultural factors that make it difficult for Americans to obtain a clear view of this option. Finally, the author argues that much discussion of rationing is vitiated by bracketing more systemic questions to which the issue of rationing is inextricably linked.     

The cultural moral right to a basic minimum of accessible health care

(1) The conception of a cultural moral right is useful in capturing the social-moral realities that underlie debate about universal health care. In asserting such rights, individuals make claims above and beyond their legal rights, but those claims are based on the society's existing commitments and moral culture. In the United States such a right to accessible basic health care is generated by various empirical social facts, primarily the conjunction of the legal requirement of access to emergency care with widely held principles about unfair free riding and just sharing of costs between well and ill. The right can get expressed in social policy through either single-payer or mandated insurance. (2) The same elements that generate this right provide modest assistance in determining its content, the structure and scope of a basic minimum of care. They justify limits on patient cost sharing, require comparative effectiveness, and make cost considerations relevant. They shed light on the status of expensive, marginally life extending, last-chance therapies, as well as life support for PVS patients. They are of less assistance in settling contentious debates about screening for breast and prostate cancer and treatments for infertility and erectile dysfunction, but even there they establish a useful framework for discussion. Scarcity of resources need not be a leading conceptual consideration in discerning a basic minimum. More important are the societal elements that generate the cultural moral right to a basic minimum.     

美国的创世论与进化论争论：历史与现状

在20世纪这个“科学的世纪”里,尽管由于受主流意识形态的影响在一些国家先后发生了社会性的反科学运动,例如纳粹德国对爱因斯坦相对论的批判、前苏联的“李森科”事件以及中国大陆在“文革”期间对“资产阶级学术权威”的批判等等,但是,在科学最为发达、最崇尚自由和民主的美国却发生几乎贯穿整个20世纪的反进化论运动,并且至今仍未结束。与其他反科学运动不同,美国这场反进化论运动既非出于科学上的无知,也不是主