Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCameron, James
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Cameron
dc.contributor.authorSavulescu, Julian
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-17T01:21:49Z
dc.date.available2024-10-17T01:21:49Z
dc.date.issued2021en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/33172
dc.description.abstractRationing policies necessarily discriminate, as they must identify bases on which to discriminate between patients in order to prioritise. Treatments may provide a greater benefit to some people than others and this may be a morally relevant difference that justifies discrimination. But it is difficult to identify when a reduced capacity to benefit from treatment is a sufficient basis deny a person access to treatment. We argue that a clearer test is required to hold governments to account. Discriminatory policies should be assessed by incorporating the principle of utility into the proportionality test. This would mean that discriminatory policies could only be justified if the benefit to the community in discriminating outweighed the cost to the individual of being discriminated against.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThomson Reutersen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Law and Medicineen
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden
dc.subjectrationingen
dc.subjectdiscriminationen
dc.subjectproportionalityen
dc.subjectegalitarianismen
dc.subjectutilitarianismen
dc.subjecthuman rightsen
dc.titleAssessing rationing decisions through the principle of proportionalityen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.subject.asrcANZSRC FoR code::48 LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES::4804 Law in context::480412 Medical and health lawen
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen
dc.rights.otherThis article was published by Thomson Reuters in the Journal of Law and Medicine and should be cited as Cameron, J., Stewart, C., & Savulescu, J. (2021). Assessing rationing decisions through the principle of proportionality. Journal of Law and Medicine, 28(4), 955–964. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.auen
dc.relation.otherWellcome Trust: WT203132
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Law Schoolen
usyd.citation.volume28en
usyd.citation.issue4en
usyd.citation.spage955en
usyd.citation.epage964en
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.