Luck egalitarianism is a responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. Its application to health and healthcare is controversial. This article addresses a novel critique of luck egalitarianism, namely, that it wrongfully discriminates against those responsible for their health disadvantage when allocating scarce healthcare resources. The philosophical literature about discrimination offers two primary reasons for what makes discrimination wrong (when it is): harm and disrespect. These two approaches are employed to analyze whether luck egalitarian healthcare prioritization should be considered wrongful discrimination. Regarding harm, it is very plausible to consider the policies harmful but much less reasonable to consider those responsible for their health disadvantages a socially salient group. Drawing on the disrespect literature, where social salience is typically not required for something to be discrimination, the policies are a form of discrimination. They are, however, not disrespectful. The upshot of this first assessment of the discrimination objection to luck egalitarianism in health is, thus, that it fails.

Ever since the publication of G. A. Cohen’s essay “If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?” the matter of personal responsibility for the amelioration of economic disadvantage has become a question for egalitarian political philosophers to wrestle with both theoretically and personally. This essay examines “the demands of equality” in light of an egalitarian philosophy that focuses on human flourishing. I consider Cohen’s call for personal commitments to the egalitarian project to show both the power and problems of his approach and propose an alternative view, where individuals’ concern for living well involves an engagement with the demands of equality, but also some respite from its strictures.

This paper begins with a simple illustration of the choice between individual and population strategies in population health policy. It describes the traditional approach on which the choice is to be made on the relative merits of the two strategies in each case. It continues by identifying two factors—our knowledge of the consequences of the epidemiological transition and the prevalence of responsibility-sensitive theories of distributive justice—that may distort our moral intuitions when we deliberate about the choice of appropriate risk-management strategies in population health. It argues that the confluence of these two factors may lead us to place too much emphasis on personal responsibility in health policy.

Influenced by the people-centered integrated care (PCIC) model, Healthy China 2030 was drafted recently with a special concern given to patient engagement. Although there are three levels of engagement (i.e., individual, household, community), patients are more likely to be empowered and activated through an individualistic approach. Thus, engaging patients at the household level appear to have been overlooked so far. Supported by ethical values and practical evidence, this article attempts to address the importance of engaging patients at the household level in shaping the Chinese healthcare system with the PCIC model orientation, and thus recommends four strategies for empowering and activating patients at the household level in the Chinese context.

It is a common belief that obesity is wholly or partially a question of personal choice and personal responsibility. It is also widely assumed that when individuals are responsible for some unfortunate state of affairs, society bears no burden to compensate them. This article focuses on two conceptualizations of responsibility: backward-looking and forward-looking conceptualizations. When ascertaining responsibility in a backward-looking sense, one has to determine how that state of affairs came into being or where the agent stood in relation to it. In contrast, a forward-looking conceptualization of responsibility puts aside questions of the past and holds a person responsible by reference to some desirable future state of affairs and will typically mean that he or she is subjected to criticism, censure, or other negative appraisals or that he or she is held cost-responsible in some form, for example, in terms of demanded compensation, loss of privileges, or similar. One example of this view is the debate as to whether the obese should be denied, wholly or partially, free and equal access to healthcare, not because they are somehow personally responsible in the backward-looking sense but simply because holding the obese responsible will have positive consequences. Taking these two conceptions of responsibility into account, the authors turn their analysis toward examining the relevant moral considerations to be taken into account when public policies regarding obesity rely on such a conception of responsibility.

This paper explored public willingness to act when exposed to cases of intimate partner violence against women, by analyzing the influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility on two types of responses: mediating and reporting to the police. Results (N = 419) yielded main effects of personal responsibility for both types of responses. No main effects of perceived severity were found. A significant interaction between perceived severity and personal responsibility was found only for reporting responses. Results are discussed in light of the helping behavior research tradition. Implications for public education and advocacy programs are also considered.

L'objectif de ce texte est de questionner les fondements normatifs des politiques d'activation, dans leur version Making Work Pay, afin de souligner les « préférences révélées » des décideurs politiques. Pour cela, nous montrons comment les théories de la justice de Rawls, Dworkin et de Sen, qui s'articulent autour des notions comme la responsabilité, la solidarité, l'égalité, la liberté, ainsi que la théorie de la reconnaissance de N. Fraser, peuvent être utilisées pour éclairer d'une autre façon l'évaluation des politiques sociales et, en particulier, les politiques d'activation.

An examination of recent education policy and research demonstrates that the development of personal and emotional competence amongst Australian school students is a national priority (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005; Lewis & Frydenberg, 2002; Reid, 2006). In an attempt to determine whether high-schools are indeed supporting the personal and emotional development of young people, the present study investigated personal responsibility, emotional intelligence and self-esteem among a sample of year 11 public (n = 274) and private (n = 124) school students. The study found that all participants demonstrated high levels of personal responsibility and emotional intelligence, with no significant differences between the public and private school. Public and private school participants significantly differed on self-esteem, with private school participants reporting high levels of self-esteem (M = 30.36) and public school participants (M = 26.92) reporting moderate levels of self-esteem. It is sometimes assumed that private schools facilitate better developmental outcomes among students than public schools. Whilst findings are limited to results obtained from one public and one private school, the current study did not find evidence to support that the personal and emotional development of students is hindered in a public school environment.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between personal responsibility, emotional intelligence and self-esteem in adolescents and young adults and explore the psychometric properties of the Personal Responsibility Questionnaire. One hundred and fifty high school students and 186 university students completed self-report questionnaires examining personal responsibility, emotional intelligence and self-esteem. Results revealed that older students reported higher levels of personal responsibility, emotional intelligence and self-esteem than the Year 11 students. The Personal Responsibility Questionnaire was found to significantly correlate with emotional intelligence and self-esteem suggesting strong construct validity.