Solidarity and Care in the Netherlands
In his chapter on solidarity, based on the theories of classical and modern sociologists, Van Oorschot (1998) defines solidarity as ‘an actual state of interrelations between individuals, groups and the larger society, which enables the collective interest to take priority over the interests of individuals or sub-collectivities’. In doing so, he seems to rephrase Durkheim’s organic solidarity. The Dutch health care system may cause one to wonder if such a definition enables us to grasp what solidarity really means. In our view, it makes the existing solidarity arrangements only partly visible. It takes solidarity on the macro-level into account, but not solidarity on the micro level, with regard to the delivery of informal care.
Vietnam’s Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak
This article explores Vietnam’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of good ethical practice in dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak. Vietnam’s response to the pandemic is in accordance with the ethics of care which emphasizes solidarity and responsibility. Vietnam’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic is also in accordance with the third generation of human rights that promote solidarity and responsibilities towards the community. A full implementation of human rights requires more emphasis on responsibilities, especially in the time of crisis.
Health care rationing
The recent decision of Cambridge Health Authority not to fund a second bone marrow transplant operation for a 10 year old girl has brought to public attention what has long been clear to doctors, managers, and politicians. Rationing or priority setting is an inherent feature of decision making in health care. This applies not only to Britain but to health services around the world.1

A recent inquiry by the all party House of Commons health committee has reviewed the experience of purchasers in setting priorities and has made a series of recommendations to the government.2 In its response the government has accepted the broad thrust of the committee's report and has set out how it intends to approach rationing in future.3

Experience in different countries suggests that there are two main approaches to rationing. Firstly, there is what might be described as rationing by exclusion. This is the approach taken in Oregon, where the state health commission drew up a long list of condition-treatment pairs and ranked them in order of priority. With the resources available it has been possible to include 565 out of 696 treatments in the government funded Medicaid programme. The remaining treatments have been excluded from funding thus far, although this may change as the Oregon scheme evolves.

The second approach is to ration by guidelines. This is the approach taken in …