Here will be multiple just enough or compassionate enough responses to these rationing issues, and we collectively need to decide which response we are willing to accept as being just enough for our future possible selves whose specific purchase Mangafodipir (trisodium) health needs are unknown to us at the moment.J. Pers. Med. 2013,In the United States we are always tempted to individualize solutions to social problems in order to protect the liberty of individuals. But this is precisely what will not work if we are to have a just and feasible and affordable resolution of the JC-1 manufacturer problem of health care rationing. Our sense of justice is essentially a social construct. We cannot have just outcomes for a distributive social policy if everyone gets to decide on their own what they think is just for them. We have to have some form of social agreement. If this social agreement is going to be a fair agreement, this will require a rational deliberative process, as opposed to normal interest group politics where agreements are a product of relative political strength which can be used to impose an agreement on weaker social groups. Again, the problem of justice is a moral problem, which means this deliberative process must involve treating all with equal moral respect. In practice that means that no one is entitled to superior access to needed health care because of their social status or political connections. The rationing issues we have identified must be addressed rationally. That is, we must give to one another what the philosopher John Rawls refers to as public reasons to justify the specific rationing rules and protocols we would recommend [45]. The defining feature of public reasons is that they are not logically attached to a religious or ideological view that others might reasonably reject. We recognize that we live in a liberal pluralistic society, so we need to give one another reasons that any citizen in such a society could accept as reasonable. Thus, I cannot refuse to provide funding for some legitimate medical intervention as part of a national health plan because the Catholic Church is opposed to that intervention for essentially religiously rooted reasons. What makes various health care rationing judgments presumptively just is that they are public or transparent; they are impartially created and enacted; they are freely and rationally self-imposed. A rational democratic deliberative process suitably inclusive and representative of all who would be affected by such judgments will satisfy those conditions. Let me offer a brief illustration of what ultimately must be generalized across our entire health care system. We start with the recognition that the vast majority of Americans are concerned about health care costs. Getting rid of waste and inefficiency in the health care system will not be sufficient to control escalating health care costs because emerging and desired new health care technologies are the real drivers of these escalating costs. That means we must identify marginally beneficial health care that costs much more than the benefits are worth. So we must be willing to give up such care for our future possible selves if in the future we found ourselves in clinical circumstances where such care, a three-drug combination for our cancer that cost 200,000 and yielded only five extra months of life, would otherwise be something that could be offered to us. Most people might actually want such care if they actually found themselves in those circumstances.Here will be multiple just enough or compassionate enough responses to these rationing issues, and we collectively need to decide which response we are willing to accept as being just enough for our future possible selves whose specific health needs are unknown to us at the moment.J. Pers. Med. 2013,In the United States we are always tempted to individualize solutions to social problems in order to protect the liberty of individuals. But this is precisely what will not work if we are to have a just and feasible and affordable resolution of the problem of health care rationing. Our sense of justice is essentially a social construct. We cannot have just outcomes for a distributive social policy if everyone gets to decide on their own what they think is just for them. We have to have some form of social agreement. If this social agreement is going to be a fair agreement, this will require a rational deliberative process, as opposed to normal interest group politics where agreements are a product of relative political strength which can be used to impose an agreement on weaker social groups. Again, the problem of justice is a moral problem, which means this deliberative process must involve treating all with equal moral respect. In practice that means that no one is entitled to superior access to needed health care because of their social status or political connections. The rationing issues we have identified must be addressed rationally. That is, we must give to one another what the philosopher John Rawls refers to as public reasons to justify the specific rationing rules and protocols we would recommend [45]. The defining feature of public reasons is that they are not logically attached to a religious or ideological view that others might reasonably reject. We recognize that we live in a liberal pluralistic society, so we need to give one another reasons that any citizen in such a society could accept as reasonable. Thus, I cannot refuse to provide funding for some legitimate medical intervention as part of a national health plan because the Catholic Church is opposed to that intervention for essentially religiously rooted reasons. What makes various health care rationing judgments presumptively just is that they are public or transparent; they are impartially created and enacted; they are freely and rationally self-imposed. A rational democratic deliberative process suitably inclusive and representative of all who would be affected by such judgments will satisfy those conditions. Let me offer a brief illustration of what ultimately must be generalized across our entire health care system. We start with the recognition that the vast majority of Americans are concerned about health care costs. Getting rid of waste and inefficiency in the health care system will not be sufficient to control escalating health care costs because emerging and desired new health care technologies are the real drivers of these escalating costs. That means we must identify marginally beneficial health care that costs much more than the benefits are worth. So we must be willing to give up such care for our future possible selves if in the future we found ourselves in clinical circumstances where such care, a three-drug combination for our cancer that cost 200,000 and yielded only five extra months of life, would otherwise be something that could be offered to us. Most people might actually want such care if they actually found themselves in those circumstances.