- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: Citations
References in:
Add references
You must login to add references.
|
|
|
Incisively written, this new edition of a popular guide first published in 1996 slices through the rhetoric of health promotion. Its penetrating analysis quickly reveals health promotion’s conceptual roots, providing an enlightening map of their web of theory and practice. David Seedhouse proves that health promotion, a discipline intended to improve the health of a population, is prejudiced—every plan and every project stems first from human values—and argues that only by acknowledging this will a mature discipline emerge. To help speed (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
A family of instruments has been developed over the last twenty five years in order to measure the individual's subjective view of his health. The instruments vary in how broadly they define health. A wide range of critiques have challenged both the validity of these measures and their uses. This paper argues that disproportionate attention has been given to one form of health status measure—the so-called utility-based measures. The ensuing controversies have distracted from the substantial progress achieved in the application (...) |
|
|
This paper explores how medical practice ought to be conducted, in the face of scarcity, if our objective is to maximise the benefits of health. After explaining briefly what the cost-per-QALY criterion means, a series of ethical objections to it are considered one by one. The objectors fall into four groups: a. those who reject all collective priority-setting as unethical; b. those who accept the need for collective priority-setting, but believe it is contrary to medical ethics; c. those who accept (...) |
|
|
I said at the beginning that some quantum leaps in our thinking would be required as we face up to the challenges and changes that health care delivery will and must undergo.It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of pragmatism.It is a matter of reality and it's a matter of simply having to face up to what, may I say, has been glaringly obious for some time.I know that doctors come with a strong ethos in terms (...) |
|
|
Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the measurement of health status. One of the most well-known health status instruments is the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). This paper examines the nature, development and testing of the SIP (and its UK equivalent the FLP). The practical merits of these instruments are explained, and some cautionary remarks are offered about their limitations. |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5d8df9484f-9zwsp uwo