Abstract
In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls demands from citizens who decide upon principles of justice and the rules derived from such principles that they abstract from all particularities that constitute their identity as unique individuals. This demand is unrealistic in policy settings where actual policy-makers convene to provide guidance, establish rules regarding public good, and enact legislation. In practice, I argue, policy-makers, legislators, and others involved in developing social rules that pertain to distributive justice formulate such rules as reasonably partial spectators. To illustrate, I show how clinical practice guidelines are established and mediated by a reasonably partial expert panel whose partial action is publicly justifiable, yet whose claims to impartiality are not.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference28 articles.
1. Brookes L. Medscape conference coverage, based on selected sessions at the 13th European Meeting on Hypertension.ALLHAT—Results and Reactions—Plus New Guidelines, New Approvals, and the Ethics of Journal Publishing. Medscape Cardiology. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/447590 .
2. Ubel P , Goold S .2003 Rationing health care: Not all definitions are created equal.Contemporary Issues in bioethics.In: Beauchamp T , Walters L , eds.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth;
3. Griswold A. 1999 Adam Smith and the virtues of the enlightenment.New York:Cambridge University Press;
4. Rawls J. 1971 A theory of justice.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press;
5. Weinstein M. 2001 Should physicians be gatekeepers of medical resources?J Med Ethics. 27:268–273.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献