↓ Skip to main content

Solidarity, justice, and recognition of the other

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Solidarity, justice, and recognition of the other
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11017-016-9387-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruud ter Meulen

Abstract

Solidarity has for a long time been referred to as the core value underpinning European health and welfare systems. But there has been debate in recent years about whether solidarity, with its alleged communitarian content, can be reconciled with the emphasis on individual freedom and personal autonomy. One may wonder whether there is still a place for solidarity, and whether the concept of justice should be embraced to analyse the moral issues regarding access to health care. In this article, I will answer this question by analysing the normative foundations of the concept of justice, followed by a deeper examination of the concept of solidarity in continental philosophy. More specifically, I will compare the philosophical traditions rooted in Kant (with emphasis on autonomy and individual rights) to approaches rooted in Hegel (with emphasis on individual relations of recognition). In addition, I will present the work of Avishai Margalit on the decent society to criticize a predominantly liberal approach to access to health care. The importance of solidarity lies particularly in its emphasis on relational aspects and the role of recognition in care practices, which are usually ignored in liberal approaches to justice. However, the article will argue that solidarity is not an alternative to a rights-based concept of justice, but must be considered as a necessary complement to it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 25%
Philosophy 6 12%
Arts and Humanities 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2023.
All research outputs
#18,502,312
of 23,758,679 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#230
of 305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,952
of 420,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,758,679 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.