Ity [45] be equalized? Each view has different practical implications so far as access to needed health care is concerned. Should everyone be given guaranteed access to one BQ-123MedChemExpress BQ-123 million dollars of health care for a lifetime? This could be hugely extravagant for some and completely inadequate for others, all depending upon the health care problems individuals are afflicted with, either as a result of nature or accident or bad choices. Some children might require a million dollars in cancer care for childhood leukemia, only to be faced with another defeasible cancer in their thirties. Are they then justly denied that needed care if they are unable to come up with another 200,000 from their own resources? Should everyone be assured access to whatever effective health care is available, no matter what the cost, if it is needed to achieve a normal life expectancy? That would address the problem in the prior paragraph. We could somewhat arbitrarily pick age seventy-five as that number. This view has theJ. Pers. Med. 2013,moral advantage of being sensitive to a large range of unfortunate life circumstances. But it would seem to require huge social expenditures for very marginal gain for individuals below age seventy-five. Individuals might receive several targeted cancer therapies in succession for a net gain of only an extra year of life at a cost of 300,000. Again, if there are other large unmet health care needs in society, expenditures such as that seem neither just nor prudent. In addition, we would be left with the unresolved question of what the just claims to needed health care would be for individuals beyond age seventy-five. Would that be left entirely up to individual ability to pay? That would look like ageism, unjust discrimination against the elderly. Norman Daniels argues for a fair equality of opportunity account of health care justice. His view is that individuals have a just claim to whatever health care would restore them to the normal opportunity range of their society [36]. This view has an intuitive plausibility. It says, for example, that we owe little in the way of life-sustaining care to patients who are in a persistent vegetative state, or the late HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 solubility stages of a dementing process, or the late stages of a terminal illness because the normal opportunities of life are no longer available to them, at least in terms of current medical capacities. They are owed comfort care. To some extent this view establishes just limits to needed health care. But it may not do enough to control access to very costly marginally beneficial care outside these three sets of circumstances. 4.2. Personalized Cancer Therapies: The Challenges of Justice The above views delineate the broad framework of the problem of health care justice. We now turn to some of the justice-related ethical challenges specific to personalized cancer therapies. We will focus our attention on the combinatorial strategy because the current medical argument sees such a strategy as being necessary, given the heterogeneity problem. Someone might argue that if HIV+ patients have a just claim to triple and quadruple drug regimens that stretch out for two decades, then cancer patients ought to have a just claim to multiple combinations of targeted therapies aimed at controlling the cancer. However, there are some major morally relevant differences. The cost of HIV drug combinations is about 30,000 per year while the cost of many of these targeted therapies exceeds 100,000 for a.Ity [45] be equalized? Each view has different practical implications so far as access to needed health care is concerned. Should everyone be given guaranteed access to one million dollars of health care for a lifetime? This could be hugely extravagant for some and completely inadequate for others, all depending upon the health care problems individuals are afflicted with, either as a result of nature or accident or bad choices. Some children might require a million dollars in cancer care for childhood leukemia, only to be faced with another defeasible cancer in their thirties. Are they then justly denied that needed care if they are unable to come up with another 200,000 from their own resources? Should everyone be assured access to whatever effective health care is available, no matter what the cost, if it is needed to achieve a normal life expectancy? That would address the problem in the prior paragraph. We could somewhat arbitrarily pick age seventy-five as that number. This view has theJ. Pers. Med. 2013,moral advantage of being sensitive to a large range of unfortunate life circumstances. But it would seem to require huge social expenditures for very marginal gain for individuals below age seventy-five. Individuals might receive several targeted cancer therapies in succession for a net gain of only an extra year of life at a cost of 300,000. Again, if there are other large unmet health care needs in society, expenditures such as that seem neither just nor prudent. In addition, we would be left with the unresolved question of what the just claims to needed health care would be for individuals beyond age seventy-five. Would that be left entirely up to individual ability to pay? That would look like ageism, unjust discrimination against the elderly. Norman Daniels argues for a fair equality of opportunity account of health care justice. His view is that individuals have a just claim to whatever health care would restore them to the normal opportunity range of their society [36]. This view has an intuitive plausibility. It says, for example, that we owe little in the way of life-sustaining care to patients who are in a persistent vegetative state, or the late stages of a dementing process, or the late stages of a terminal illness because the normal opportunities of life are no longer available to them, at least in terms of current medical capacities. They are owed comfort care. To some extent this view establishes just limits to needed health care. But it may not do enough to control access to very costly marginally beneficial care outside these three sets of circumstances. 4.2. Personalized Cancer Therapies: The Challenges of Justice The above views delineate the broad framework of the problem of health care justice. We now turn to some of the justice-related ethical challenges specific to personalized cancer therapies. We will focus our attention on the combinatorial strategy because the current medical argument sees such a strategy as being necessary, given the heterogeneity problem. Someone might argue that if HIV+ patients have a just claim to triple and quadruple drug regimens that stretch out for two decades, then cancer patients ought to have a just claim to multiple combinations of targeted therapies aimed at controlling the cancer. However, there are some major morally relevant differences. The cost of HIV drug combinations is about 30,000 per year while the cost of many of these targeted therapies exceeds 100,000 for a.