I wasn't going to contribute to this debate again, but I'm a little
fearful that some might be persuaded by Barbara's misleading message. For
health care that is 'useless' (and I'm not denying that some of it may be
useless), then there will be no need for it (assuming that at least some
capacity to benefit from health care is an essential component of 'need').
As far as I can see, Barbara's point does not therefore in any way
undermine the 'equal access for equal need' argument (the last sentence of
Barbara's message is in fact consistent with moving towards equal access
for equal need).
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:03:31 -0400, Starfield, Barbara
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that much of health care is useless
>in improving health/reducing disability. Therefore, equal access can be
>a bad thing---which is what is wrong with using the equal access for
>equal need argument. The trick is to find out what aspects of health
>services are useful and effective, and work towards making sure that
>they are provided in relationship to need.
>
|