Suchergebnisse

Lige nu venter over 400 danskere på et nyt organ, der kan forbedre og forlænge deres liv. De venter i usikkerhed, og nogle venter forgæves. I Danmark dør der hver anden uge et menneske, der venter på en transplantation, fordi vi ikke har organer nok til at redde alle.00'Organdonation ? og behovet for en ny model' undersøger, hvorfor det danske system til organdonation ikke er godt nok. Herhjemme har vi aktivt tilvalg, mens en række andre lande såsom Wales, Belgien og New Zealand har andre donationsmodeller. De har eksperimenteret med både aktivt fravalg og tvungent valg, og deres resultater viser, at vi godt kan få flere til at donere på en måde, der er etisk forsvarlig.00Bogen diskuterer således også de filosofiske problemstillinger, der knytter sig til organdonation. Om den enkelte kan bestemme over sin egen krop efter døden. Om efterladte familiemedlemmer skal have vetoret mod transplantation. Og om vi som samfund bør prioritere nogle mennesker over andre i køen til et nyt organ ? og dermed, måske, et nyt liv

Unequal and declining electoral turnout has spurred numerous initiatives to reverse the trend. Voting advice applications (VAAs) are one prominent attempt. VAAs match the opinions of voters with those of candidates or parties. As the popularity of VAAs increases and research corroborates their effect on turnout and political preferences, it matters at lot who uses VAAs and, thus, experiences these effects. The early VAA literature found that VAA users tend to be young, well-educated, politically interested men. For the first time, this article assesses whether this pattern changes over time. Using German election data, it measures whether age, gender, education, and political interest still explains VAA use. Age remains important, while gender is no longer significant. Those with the highest levels of education remain significantly more likely to use VAAs, but this is no longer true for those with moderate levels of education. Political interest remains an important predictor of VAA usage. Overall, we have thus seen a development in which users become more similar to the population as a whole. A development which corresponds to Rogers' diffusion thesis. This is important in light of the continued interest in unequal political participation as it suggests that VAAs may, in the long term, be able to reach groups in society currently not engaged in the political process.

Allocating health care resources based on personal responsibility is a prominent and controversial idea. This article assesses the plausibility of such measures through the lens of luck egalitarianism, a prominent responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. This article presents a framework of luck egalitarianism in health, which integrates other concerns of justice than health, is pluralist, and is compatible with a wide range of measures for giving lower priority to those deemed responsible. Applying this framework to oral health, the allocation of livers among potential transplant recipients and travel insurance demonstrates that this version of luck egalitarianism is a much more attractive and flexible theory than much of the contemporary discussion allows. This also pertains to its ability to provide plausible answers to two prominent critiques of harshness and intrusiveness. The discussion also shows that the luck egalitarian commitment to eliminating the influence of luck on people's lives is likely to require substantial redistribution.

While markets are widely lauded as efficient and attractive allocation mechanisms, their moral limits remain a source of controversy. The writings of G. A. Cohen provide an important contribution to this debate. Cohen offers two critiques of the market. One is a distributive critique, which maintains that markets fail in eliminating the influence of differential luck on people's lives. The other is a community critique, maintaining that market relations fall short of a community of mutual caring. These critiques differ in important ways from critiques developed by Satz and Sandel, and suggest a need to assess markets beyond desperate exchanges and the adverse effects of incentives. Cohen's work also points to how we can realize distributive justice and community. His solution utilizes the supply and demand mechanism of the market as a signaling device rather than an allocation mechanism. High wages signal the importance of a specific job, but wage differences are subsequently taxed away. This peculiar market arrangement relies on moral rather than economic incentives and only works if it is combined with a communitarian ethos. This ethos solution is evaluated in light of recent criticisms that it would compromise the freedom to pursue personal projects, that incentives may express community, and that the competition it utilizes mitigates against community. In the end, these critiques are not deemed persuasive.

In December 2015, Wales became the first country in the UK to move away from an opt-in system in organ procurement. The new legislation introduces the concept of deemed consent whereby a person who neither opt in nor opt out is deemed to have consented to donation. The data released by the National Health Service (NHS) in July 2017 provide an excellent opportunity to assess this legislation in light of concerns that it would decrease procurement rates for living and deceased donation, as well as sparking an increase in family refusals. None of these concerns have come to pass, with Wales experiencing more registered donors, fewer family refusals and more living donations. However, as the number of actual donors has dropped slightly from a high level, the situation must be monitored closely in the years to come.

The scarcity of livers available for transplants forces tough choices upon us. Lives for those not receiving a transplant are likely to be short. One large group of potential recipients needs a new liver because of alcohol consumption, while others suffer for reasons unrelated to their own behaviour. Should the former group receive lower priority when scarce livers are allocated? This discussion connects with one of the most pertinent issues in contemporary political philosophy; the role of personal responsibility in distributive justice. One prominent theory of distributive justice, luck egalitarianism, assesses distributions as just if, and only if, people's relative positions reflect their exercises of responsibility. There is a principled luck egalitarian case for giving lower priority to those who are responsible for their need. Compared to the existing literature favouring such differentiation, luck egalitarianism provides a clearer rationale of fairness, acknowledges the need for individual assessments of responsibility, and requires initiatives both inside and outside of the allocation systems aimed at mitigating the influence from social circumstances. Furthermore, the concrete policies that luck egalitarians can recommend are neither too harsh on those who make imprudent choices nor excessively intrusive towards those whose exercises of responsibility are assessed.

Under the heading of liberal egalitarianism, Cappelen and Norheim present a novel approach regarding how we are to assess health disadvantages reflecting people's choices. It seeks to uphold a commitment to principles of responsibility and egalitarianism, while avoiding objections that such theories fail for humanitarian, liberal or fairness reasons. The approach draws a line between those of such diseases which are life-threatening, costly to treat relative to income or undermining important political capabilities and those which are not. For the latter kind, their approach allows for co-payment, whereas the former requires a different measure. Here, the authors maintain that unhealthy choices should be taxed and treatment offered equally to everyone without further cost. While this is an interesting approach, it faces important difficulties. It consists of two elements, which can come into tension with each other when concerns for severity of disease and personal responsibility recommend the employment of different elements. Furthermore, as it stands, the approach is incomplete because it seems unable to address important non-monetary shortages, such as the organ shortage. Finally, it is not apparent how the approach is able to address the significant ways in which social circumstances influences people's choices in health and their ability to stay healthy.

People's health is hugely affected by where they live, their occupational status and their socio-economic position. It has been widely argued that the presence of such social determinants in health provides good reasons to reject luck egalitarianism as a theory of distributive justice in health. The literature provides different reasons why this responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice should not be applied to health. The critiques submit that (i) the social circumstances undermine or remove people's responsibility for their health; (ii) responsibility sensitive health policies would adversely affect those who are worst off and; (iii) the luck egalitarian approach to health distracts from the important task of rectifying socio-economic influences on people's health and provides individualistic solutions to collective problems. But for each of these variants of the critique luck egalitarianism provides suitable answers. The literature on social determinants is no detriment to the project of applying luck egalitarianism to health.

AbstractVoters often face a complex information environment with many options when they vote in elections. Research on democratic representation has traditionally been skeptical about voters' ability to navigate this complexity. However, voting advice applications (VAAs) offer voters a shortcut to compare their own preferences across numerous issues with those of a large number of political candidates. As VAAs become more prevalent, it is critical to understand whether and how voters use them when they vote. We analyze how VAA users process and use VAA information about their district candidates with original survey data from the 2019 Danish parliamentary election in collaboration with the administrators of one of the most widely used Danish VAAs. The results demonstrate that VAAs have substantively large effects on their users' choices between parties and between candidates within parties.