Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (2018), 27, 184–186. © Cambridge University Press 2018. doi:10.1017/S0963180117000548 184 Special Section: Justice, Healthcare, and Wellness Editorial Moving from Theory to Practice TUIJA TAKALA Everyone agrees that justice is of paramount importance, and that it should be a core value and a leading principle when decisions affecting health and well-being are made. However, theoretically, justice lends itself to dozens of different mean- ings. This special section brings together nine scholarly contributions that study the notion of justice in relation to healthcare and well-being. The contributions start from the predominantly theoretical and gradually the emphasis shifts toward the practical. The collection opens with Matti Häyry’s extensive study of the different theo- ries of justice. In his article, Häyry provides a systematic review of the theories, and shows their relative positions on a conceptual map. Häyry uses a distinc- tion between “American” and “European” notions of justice as a heuristic tool to further understand the many facets of justice. Häyry’s article is an impor- tant reminder of the numerous connotations of “justice,” and a prompt that for any meaningful discussion on justice—and healthcare and well-being—we need to remain cognizant of the competing, and often incommensurable, definitions. 1 Niall Scott adds anarchism to the discussions. Anarchism does not have a theory of justice per se, although, as Scott demonstrates, some of the justice-related con- siderations within anarchism come close to communitarian ideals, but also share credos of liberalism. What anarchism brings to the discussion is, in search of a better term, the idea of “organic justice” (not a term that Scott uses) that grows from the grassroots level. Possibly more importantly, perhaps more than any other approach, anarchism is concerned with the plight of the marginalized, and is interested in exposing power relations that can have an adverse effect on people’s health and well-being. 2 Rosamond Rhodes’s article continues with the complexity and many-sidedness of justice. Rhodes argues that it is a mistake to assume that there would be one monolithic concept of justice that would be appropriate in all fields of healthcare. Rather, we should realize that the context will tell us which notion of justice is applicable and when. She analyses several real-life cases and shows how the notion of justice varies from one setting to another. There is no simple rule for knowing which notion of justice to invoke and when; however, according to Rhodes, centuries of consensus decisions by physicians give us some guideposts. For example, the principles of justice at play in nonacute care cases are different The editor of this Special Section thanks the Academy of Finland (projects SA 272467 and SA 307467) and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core . IP address: 194.15.107.98, on 20 Apr 2020 at 21:29:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000548