Choose one of these prompts to write a 400-word count response.
I have uploaded the book that you will need for this assignment.
TOPIC: Allocation, Social Justice, and Health Policy
Readings:
p. 167-188, 222-233
You need only to focus and use those pages to answer the prompt.
1. What is your response to the case study of the “Young Invincibles”? Consider the two takes that Amsden suggests we might have on the phenomena: first, the fact that the young invincible phenomena are “purely a symptom of youth” versus the view that it is “an example of how the system bypasses some groups altogether”. (168) You might also consider how your answers to the “informal litmus test” (169) might color your response.
2. Given the discussion in “Young Invincibles” of the benefits and problems with “community rating” and “age banding” insurance systems, and the views put forth in the Daniels and Kawachi articles, where do you stand on the question of opportunity versus access to health care? Is health care a right? If so, what are the limits? If not, why not? The other issue that comes with this question is, of course, what is the obligation that comes with any proposed right to health care, and who should be obligated to shoulder the burden? Do you side with Daniels or Kawachi? We might also discuss the “Market Mechanisms in Health Care” discussion from the reading on p. 179.
3. What do you think of the 1983 President’s Commission report for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research? It seems to me to have laid out a pretty good illustration of the problem we face, but to what extent does it provide answers to the problems? Do you agree or disagree? Is this actually a necessary part of the Commission’s report or is it sufficient to thoroughly outline the matter at hand?
4. Consider the issue of “social determinants of health” proposed by Daniels and further discussed by Kawachi. Is it clear what these are and how they affect the ongoing debate about health care? Would you agree that social determinants of health are important to this discussion or ought we focus on health concerns that are more “strictly biological”? Indeed, is it possible to draw a line between these two?
5. Consider the Growth Hormone discussion offered by Allen as another possible litmus test for “social determinants of health” as opposed to biological disorder. What do you think of Allen’s suggestion that we treat Short Stature in the same way that we treat Growth Hormone Deficiency and to similar extents? How does this discussion affect your view of the multi-tiered system proposed by Daniels? Should growth hormone treatment be provided to those who are “simply” short? Why or why not? And is there a significant distinction in your view between agreeing with Allen’s view and assenting to one who might argue that breast augmentation surgeries ought to be covered and treated for related reasons?
