Health disparities and autonomy

Bioethics

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 431-439

  Courtwright, Andrew ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Capabilities; Control; Health disparities; Justice; Michael Marmot

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; FREEDOM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; SOCIAL CLASS; UNITED STATES;

FEMALE; FREEDOM; HEALTH STATUS DISPARITIES; HUMANS; MALE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; SOCIAL CLASS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 51349140352     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00671.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. North Carolina Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities and State Center for Health Statistics. Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities in North Carolina: Report Card. Available at: http://www.ncminorityhealth.org/omhhd/ OMH_Documents/Report%20Card/Final%20Report%20Card%20&%20Cover.pdf [Accessed 16 Nov 2005].
2. United Health Foundation. America's Health Rankings: 2005 Edition. Available at: http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/Findings. html#introduction [Accessed 18 Oct 2006].
3. National Institutes of Health. What are Health Disparities? Available at: http://healthdisparities.nih.gov/whatare.html [accessed 26 Nov 2005].
4. M. Marmot. Status Syndrome: A Challenge to Medicine. JAMA 2006 295 : 1304.
5. R. Erikson. 2001. Why Do Graduates Live Longer? Education, Occupation, Family and Mortality During the 1990s. In Cradle to Grave: Life-Course Change in Modern Sweden. J.O. Jonsson and C. Mills, eds. Durham, NC: Sociology Press: 211-227.
6. Marmot, op. cit. note 4: p. 1304.
7. L.Y. Wang et al. 1999. Status Attainment in America: The Roles of Locus of Control and Self-esteem in Education and Occupational Outcomes. Sociol Spectr 1999 19 : 281 298.
8. C. Muntaner J. Lynch. Income Inequality, Social Cohesion, and Class Relations: A Critique of Wilkinson's neo-Durkheimian Research Program. Int J Health Serv 1999 29 : 59 81.
9. N. Daniels. 2006. Equity and Population Health: Toward a Broader Bioethics Agenda. Hastings Cent Rep 2006 36 : 22 35
10. Marmot, op. cit. note 4: p. 1305.
11. W. Ruberman et al. Psychosocial Influences on Mortality after Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med 1984 311 : 552 559.
12. T. Chandola et al. Work Stress and Coronary Heart Disease: What are the Mechanisms? Eur Heart J 2008 29 : 640 648.
13. For an extended discussion see M. Marmot. 2004. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. New York, NY: Times Books: 104-137.
14. N. Arpaly. 2003. Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. I follow Arpaly's structure in the subsequent discussion of autonomy.
15. Marmot, op. cit. note 13: p. 11.
16. H.G. Frankfurt. 1988. The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. T.E. Hill. 1991. Autonomy and Self-Respect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 5.
18. E. A. Skinner. A Guide to Constructs of Control. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996 71 : 554.
19. Hill, op. cit. note 17: p. 44.
20. Marmot, op. cit. note 13: pp. 19, 108, 110.
21. E. A. Skinner. A Guide to Constructs of Control. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996 71 : Ibid: 241.
22. A. Sen. Justice: Means versus Freedoms. Philos Public Aff 1990 19 : 114.
23. A. Sen. 1991. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 39.
24. The nature of this value is somewhat obscure. At points, Sen seems to suggest that it springs from basic, cross-cultural human needs. A. Sen. 1991. Inequality Reexamined: 39.
25. Martha Nussbaum, in developing a variant of Sen's position, argues that a particular set of functionings should be preferred if they can be agreed upon as part of an 'overlapping census' among individuals who otherwise have significantly different positions on the good life for humans.
26. M. Nussbaum. Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan. Ethics 2000 111 : 102 140.
27. Freedom comes into play at two points in Sen's theory: first, the capabilities set is an expression of the freedom to choose among alternative lives. Second, Sen argues that freedom to choose is itself an intrinsically valuable functioning. Exactly how these two senses of freedom (and the nature of their values) relate to one another is a complicated issue within the theory. Sen, op. cit. note 23.
28. Marmot, op. cit. note 13: p. 240.
29. M. Nussbaum. Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan. Ethics 2000 111 : 102 140. Ibid: 249.
30. E. Anderson. What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics 1999 109 : 287 337.
31. J. Ruger. Health and Social Justice. Lancet. 2004 364 : 1075 1080.
32. J. Ruger. Health and Social Justice. Lancet. 2004 364 : Ibid: 1075.
33. There is a debate between Daniels and Ruger as to whether Rawlsian equality of opportunity is the same as Sen's equality of capabilities, or amounts to the same thing. If Daniels is right, and they are coextensive, then there may not be a significant difference between the normative recommendations of these two approaches
34. N. Daniels. Justice, Health, and Health Care. Am J Bioeth 2001 1 : 5 6.