Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCarter, SM
dc.contributor.authorEntwistle, V
dc.contributor.authorMcCaffery, K
dc.contributor.authorRychetnik, L
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-21
dc.date.available2015-01-21
dc.date.issued2011-01-01
dc.identifier.citationCarter SM, Entwistle VA, McCaffery K, Rychetnik L. Shared Health Governance: The Potential Danger of Oppressive “Healthism”. The American Journal of Bioethics 2011; 11(7): 57-59.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/12606
dc.description.abstractWe share an interest in public health and in the capabilities approach developed by Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, and others (Comim, Qizilbash, and Alkire 2008; Sen 2009; Nussbaum 1999), so were curious to see how Jennifer Prah Ruger would apply her “health capability paradigm” to health governance. The resulting model—shared health governance (SHG)—has real potential to promote justice in health in some contexts. However, based on the description provided in this issue (Ruger 2011), aspects of SHG seem at odds with important features of the capabilities approach. We suggest that SHG will better safeguard the freedoms of individuals—including their health capabilities—if modified in two ways: (1) if the scope of application is reduced, and (2) if a focus on capabilities for health rather than achievements of health is more consistently maintained.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen
dc.rightsOther
dc.titleShared Health Governance: The Potential Danger of Oppressive “Healthism”.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.type.pubtypeAuthor accepted manuscripten
usyd.facultyFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Ethics


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.