Universalists, Republicans and Rationalists: Exploring Health Sector Solidarity and Its Boundary through the Comparative Experience of Overseas Taiwanese

IF 1.4 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI:10.1093/phe/phad006

{"title":"Universalists, Republicans and Rationalists: Exploring Health Sector Solidarity and Its Boundary through the Comparative Experience of Overseas Taiwanese","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Through users’ cross-system comparative experience engaging with the health systems in Taiwan and other countries, this article probes into their understandings and value judgments and specifically their reasonings for the ‘solidarity with whom?’ question in the health sector solidarity. With the cross-system comparison approach, the study adopted semi-structured interviews with 30 Taiwanese participants who have studied, lived or worked abroad and engaged with the health system in Canada, the USA or the UK. This approach offers the opportunity for one to evaluate the health system in the home country from a relative viewpoint from the host country. The participants suggested that the boundary of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) should be as inclusive as possible, covering all legal residents in Taiwan regardless of their status, and that the citizens should share more financial responsibility. The ethical reasons for supporting the NHI include recognizing health sector solidarity among people, considering the coverage as a protection of the human right to health, humanitarian reasons and self-interest. Three archetypes of users emerged from the synthesis: Universalists, Rationalists and Republicans. The cross-system comparative experience makes the participants have more supportive attitudes toward the ideals of health sector solidarity.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Through users’ cross-system comparative experience engaging with the health systems in Taiwan and other countries, this article probes into their understandings and value judgments and specifically their reasonings for the ‘solidarity with whom?’ question in the health sector solidarity. With the cross-system comparison approach, the study adopted semi-structured interviews with 30 Taiwanese participants who have studied, lived or worked abroad and engaged with the health system in Canada, the USA or the UK. This approach offers the opportunity for one to evaluate the health system in the home country from a relative viewpoint from the host country. The participants suggested that the boundary of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) should be as inclusive as possible, covering all legal residents in Taiwan regardless of their status, and that the citizens should share more financial responsibility. The ethical reasons for supporting the NHI include recognizing health sector solidarity among people, considering the coverage as a protection of the human right to health, humanitarian reasons and self-interest. Three archetypes of users emerged from the synthesis: Universalists, Rationalists and Republicans. The cross-system comparative experience makes the participants have more supportive attitudes toward the ideals of health sector solidarity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

普遍主义者、共和主义者与理性主义者:从海外台湾人的比较经验探讨卫生部门团结及其边界

本文通过使用者参与台湾与其他国家卫生系统的跨系统比较经验，探讨使用者对“与谁团结?”的理解与价值判断，特别是对“与谁团结?”卫生部门团结的问题。本研究采用半结构化访谈法，访问30位曾在海外学习、生活或工作，并参与加拿大、美国或英国医疗系统的台湾受访者。这种方法使人们有机会从东道国的相对观点来评价母国的卫生系统。嘉宾建议，台湾全民健康保险的边界应尽可能包容，涵盖所有在台湾的合法居民，不论其身份如何，公民应分担更多的经济责任。支持全国健康保险的道德理由包括:承认卫生部门在人民之间的团结，将该保险视为对健康人权的保护，人道主义原因和自身利益。在这种综合中出现了三种用户原型:普遍主义者、理性主义者和共和主义者。跨系统的比较经验使与会者对卫生部门团结的理想持更加支持的态度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

9.50%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.