How does the operation of PHARMAC's 'Community Exceptional ...

equity. However, despite the fact that Sen’s ideas of justice are influenced by
Rawls, on this point Sen placed himself among the critics of Rawls.
The hypothetical social agreement forged under Rawls’ veil of ignorance bore
no regard for the outcomes of decisions from such social agreement. According
to Sen, Rawls took no account of the position of relative privilege in American
society and did not discuss under-privilege or prejudice in his theory. Sen’s
upbringing in India has drawn this point into focus and he argued that merely
contending that these negative externalities (under-privilege or prejudice) are
eliminated under the veil cannot ensure the true application of the principles of
distributive justice.
Sen challenged Rawls’ utopian proposition that agreement will always be
reached by participants of the thought experiment. Sen’s consequentialist side
asserted that what really happens to people in life under the veil cannot simply
be ignored.
While Rawls placed liberty as a top priority, Sen believed that there are other
equally important priorities which should not necessarily be submerged under
liberty. On this point, Sen presented the examples of the value of free
association, safety, food and shelter, property rights or access to medical care.
This is perhaps Sen’s most significant advancement of Rawls’ theory of justice.
Sen asserted that, even though Rawls did not mention health in his index of
primary goods, good health is the capacity which underlies our ability to utilise
primary goods. Sen believed that concerns about equality must not only focus
on just distributions of these primary goods and benefits, but should also focus
on giving people an equal share of capabilities to take advantage of what Rawls
describes as primary goods and freedoms (Daniels, 2008).
What really mattered to Sen was that people have the capability to enjoy equal
distributions of Rawls’ index. He insists people with disabilities, illnesses, lack
of opportunities for education, no access to employment; the victims of
prejudice and discrimination, poor housing, a lack of public health or nutrition
have less freedom to enjoy an equal index of primary goods.
Interestingly Marmot (2006) claimed the converse also to be true: that an
inability to do the things one had reason to value leads to health inequalities
62