This is true even if we accept the principle of fair equality of opportunity principle as the appropriate principle to govern health and health care.
Some argue that John Rawls's principles developed for the case of domestic justice, notably, the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle or the Difference Principle, should apply globally (Caney 2005, Moellendorf 2002).
Equality of opportunity principles assert that if there is to be inequality in the rewards and remuneration and status dispensed by social arrangements, all members of society should have equal opportunity suitably defined to gain the superior positions.
Okin argues that the "gender system" violates both the liberty and equality of opportunity principles because by effectively assigning roles to citizens according to sex it circumvents citizens' "free choice of occupation" (Okin 1989, 103).
In many cases, an equality of health principle and a priority of health principle have the same practical implications.
A society therefore will have reasons to adopt a more substantial equality of opportunity principle, with equal opportunities for education, health care, etc. — the same reasons it had for adopting a merely formal equality of opportunity principle.
On the one hand, they argue, Daniels treats its two parts as simply regulating certain specific social determinants of health the fair equality of opportunity principle regulates education (e.g)., while the difference principle regulates income.
The argument for universal access sketched earlier specifically embraces Rawls's fair equality of opportunity principle.
However, both inequalities would still count as injustices on an equality of income principle.
(Workplace organisation, if validated as a determinant of health, would also be regulated under the fair equality of opportunity principle).
A society with a more substantial equality of opportunity principle in place will still not be providing equality of opportunity for all.
