New Perspectives on the Theory of Justice: Implications for Physical Therapy Ethics and Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent revisions of physical therapy codes of ethics have included a new emphasis concerning health inequities and social injustice. This emphasis reflects the growing evidence regarding the importance of social determinants of health, epidemiological trends for health service delivery, and the enhanced participation of physical therapists in shaping health care reform in a number of international contexts. This perspective article suggests that there is a "disconnect" between the societal obligations and aspirations expressed in the revised codes and the individualist ethical frameworks that predominantly underpin them. Primary health care is an approach to health care arising from an understanding of the nexus between health and social disadvantage that considers the health needs of patients as expressive of the health needs of the communities of which they are members. It is proposed that re-thinking ethical frameworks expressed in codes of ethics can both inform and underpin practical strategies for working in primary health care. This perspective article provides a new focus on the ethical principle of justice: the ethical principle that arguably remains the least consensually understood and developed in the ethics literature of physical therapy. A relatively recent theory of justice known as the "capability approach to justice" is discussed, along with its potential to assist physical therapy practitioners to further develop moral agency in order to address situations of health inequity and social injustice in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.162 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".