Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Consequentialism, reasons, value and justice.

Julian Savulescu

    Bioethics
    |October 20, 2001
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Clinical psychedelic research in adolescents: a scoping review and overview of ethical considerations.

    The Lancet. Child & adolescent health·2025
    Same author

    Digital Doppelgängers, Human Relationships, and Practical Identity.

    Bioethics·2025
    Same author

    Chat-IRB? How application-specific language models can enhance research ethics review.

    Journal of medical ethics·2025
    Same author

    When to create embryos or organoids for research.

    Journal of medical ethics·2025
    Same author

    Generative AI in healthcare education: How AI literacy gaps could compromise learning and patient safety.

    Nurse education in practice·2025
    Same author

    Academic freedom, artificial intelligence and the blandification of ethics.

    Journal of medical ethics·2025
    Same journal

    Surrogacy and the Moral Significance of Gestation: Reassessing Procreative Responsibilities.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Capable, Unbearably Suffering, and Excluded: People With Mental Illness and the Ethics of Canada's Assisted-Dying Regime.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Transhumanism Without Transindividuation in the Age Without Epochality: Stiegler, Vice, and Radical Human Enhancement.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Between Safeguard and Constraint: Navigating Patient Autonomy in Protective Laws for Medical Assistance in Dying.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Bioethics of Space Exploration: Life, Risk, and Responsibility Beyond Earth.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    The Concept of Harm in Medical Ethics.

    Bioethics·2026
    See all related articles

    This study challenges prioritizing healthcare based solely on prognosis, proposing a "well-being" approach to distributive justice. It argues for equitable resource allocation, ensuring fair access for all patients, even those with lower prognoses.

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Health Economics
    • Philosophy of Medicine

    Background:

    • John Harris's work on distributive justice in healthcare is influential.
    • Harris controversially suggests abandoning prognosis-based patient prioritization.
    • He posits healthcare's good is maximizing individual lifespan and quality, termed 'opportunism'.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To evaluate Harris's 'opportunism' theory against a 'well-being' theory for healthcare's good.
    • To address concerns that utilitarianism in healthcare resource allocation can lead to discrimination.
    • To propose an alternative framework for distributive justice in healthcare.

    Main Methods:

    • Critically analyzing John Harris's 'opportunism' thesis.
    • Comparing 'opportunism' with a 'well-being' theory of healthcare's value.
    Keywords:
    Analytical ApproachHealth Care and Public HealthPhilosophical Approach

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Developing a conceptual model of justice based on rational claims and reasons for action.

    • Main Results:

    • The 'well-being' theory is presented as superior to Harris's 'opportunism'.
    • Utilitarian concerns are addressed by linking justice to reasons for action and a 'plateau' relationship between reasons and consequences.
    • This framework allows for equitable resource distribution, not solely based on the highest expected value or prognosis.

    Conclusions:

    • Healthcare justice should satisfy equally rational claims, not just maximize overall value.
    • A 'plateau' model of reasons for action accommodates equal claims despite differing life potentials.
    • This approach supports continued, but not exclusive, use of prognosis in resource allocation, ensuring fair access for patients with reasonable prognoses.