We have located links that may give you full text access.
English Abstract
Journal Article
[Not Available].
INTRODUCTION: A legal exception to the principle of equal health rights, discriminatory subsidies often pose an ethical dilemma in the field of application.
AIM: To analyze discriminatory subsidies for healthcare in the light of the ethical principle of justice and to propose alternatives to any inherent legal and ethical conflicts.
METHOD: This was a qualitative, descriptive and analytical study based on semi-structured interviews with caregivers.
RESULTS: Participants felt that the application of discriminatory subsidies has a negative impact on substantial distributive justice. The infringements of the award conditions were exclusively for the benefit of the patients concerned. Their impact was considered positive on distributive justice and negative on formal justice.
DISCUSSION: Discriminatory care subsidies generally stem from a legal requirement whose application should not be ambiguous. It is apparent that the infringements of the conditions for attribution were in favour of substantial distributive justice. This opposition is a potential source of decision-making difficulties for caregivers who often choose to violate conditions for the benefit of their indigent patients. There are therefore violations of ethically understandable standards, which must be admitted. This could be done through the provision of exceptions for the application of standards for ”noble causes” and conscientious objection clauses in health policy texts.
CONCLUSION: The legitimacy of health policy norms is essential for their effective application, hence the interest of taking distributive justice into account in the genesis of formal norms.
AIM: To analyze discriminatory subsidies for healthcare in the light of the ethical principle of justice and to propose alternatives to any inherent legal and ethical conflicts.
METHOD: This was a qualitative, descriptive and analytical study based on semi-structured interviews with caregivers.
RESULTS: Participants felt that the application of discriminatory subsidies has a negative impact on substantial distributive justice. The infringements of the award conditions were exclusively for the benefit of the patients concerned. Their impact was considered positive on distributive justice and negative on formal justice.
DISCUSSION: Discriminatory care subsidies generally stem from a legal requirement whose application should not be ambiguous. It is apparent that the infringements of the conditions for attribution were in favour of substantial distributive justice. This opposition is a potential source of decision-making difficulties for caregivers who often choose to violate conditions for the benefit of their indigent patients. There are therefore violations of ethically understandable standards, which must be admitted. This could be done through the provision of exceptions for the application of standards for ”noble causes” and conscientious objection clauses in health policy texts.
CONCLUSION: The legitimacy of health policy norms is essential for their effective application, hence the interest of taking distributive justice into account in the genesis of formal norms.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app