<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <record>
    <leader>00000nam  2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">INLIS000000000002801</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20221103035941</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="035" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">0010-0520002801</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <controlfield tag="008">221103################|##########|#eng##</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="020" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">978-0-521-67445-4</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="082" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">346.0175</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">346.0175 SYR l</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Syrett, Keith</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Law, Legitimacy and the Rationing of Health Care :</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">A Contextual and Comparative Perspective /</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Keith Syrett</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="260" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Cambridge :</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">Cambriedge University Press,</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">2007</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="300" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">xiii, 252 p. ;</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">23cm.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="500" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Indeks : p.246-252</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Keith Syrett argues for a reappraisal of the role of public law adjudication in questions of healthcare rationing. As governments worldwide turn to explicit rationing strategies to manage the mismatch between demand for and supply of health services and treatments, disappointed patients and the public have sought to contest the moral authority of bodies making retioning decisions. This has led to the growing involvement of law in this field of public policy. Drawing upon jurisprudence from England, Canada, and South Africa, the book evaluates the capacity of courts to establish the condetions for a process of public deliberation from which legitimacy for healthcare rationing may be derived.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="a">Legitimacy</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">09821/MKRI-P/XI-2008</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">09822/MKRI-P/XI-2008</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">09822/MKRI-P/XI-2008</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">09821/MKRI-P/XI-2008</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">09821/MKRI-P/XI-2008</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">09822/MKRI-P/XI-2008</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>
