Of course there are exceptions, but there definitely is a strong correlation between certain measures of wealth and longevity. Gapminder can give a nice view of the very clear correlation, as well as the inevitable exceptions. There is at least one exception to every rule (even this one), but that does not immediately invalidate the rule.

As to health inequalities that are not the result of action or inaction: you yourself answer that one when you say "...or at least drastically reduced". Implicit in that is that they cannot be eliminated, and that remainder would not be an inequity at all.

I see that I have neglected to respond to one important element of your reply. You say that "... there is an element of injustice in all health inequalities making them all inequities". In the definition I use here, the fact that the inequality is avoidable is, by itself, not sufficient to qualify it as an inequity: it would also need to be unnecessary and unfair.

I have already given an example of an inequality that is avoidable but not unfair: the stunt man.

Looking at inequalities that are avoidable but necessary, one should look at e.g. economic necessity: we have extensive, but still limited means at our disposal, and we cannot solve every health inequality within those means. A large part of the art of public health consists of giving guidance when making these hard choices. This is just one sort of necessity; others could e.g. relate to (national) security, or even the health of others -- think of subjects of clinical testing, who can (and sometimes do) experience serious health issues as a result.

I think what I meant was that if all inequalities exist due to specific actions or inactions (which I think they do) then there is an element of unfairness in all inequalities, making them inequities.

While I get the fundamental premise that resources are limited, I am not sure how well it really applies here.  I am not sure that I agree with the argument that the limitations placed on resources available for public health practitioners is a necessity. It is true that because they are allotted limited resources, public health practitioners may be limited in what they can do - but I don't agree that the money allotted to them need be as limited as it is.   In fact, choice of many governments not to prioritize public health is exactly the kind of unfair action I was referring to. 

While there may be a strong correlation between poverty (at the country level) and low life expectancy that does not mean that one causes the other. My point is that even countries with very limited resources can make great strides in public health - and that limited resources are not necessarily an excuse for inequalities.  I think that (I know you love generalizations) the vast majority inequalities between countries' health indicators are due to some action or inaction (i.e.: misspending, inappropriate or non-existent programs - the list goes on....) and as such, can be labeled inequities.

I had already written next week's posting in this series, but I am now re-writing it because I think your questions merit a more extensive response than would comfortably fit into this thread; furthermore, I think not everybody who reads the main posts reads the comments, and I feel that this merits wider exposure. So: stay tuned!

Maybe within Whitehead and Dalhgren's definition of inequity there should be some qualification of what unfair means.  Are self inflicted decisions considered unfair?  Or does unfair imply that a country, group or person on the short end of the inequality is the victim (for lack of a better word) of someone else's unfair action or inaction?

An example might be the differences between life expectancy between two wealthy countries like the United States and Canada.  While Canada has a lower per capita GDP - they have a higher life expectancy.  This difference has frequently been attributed to Canada's universal health care system.  Some might argue that the USA not having universal health care is their government's own decision and so the difference between their life expectancy and Canada's cannot be attributed to some unfair action / inaction - i.e: as a country, the United States cannot be considered victims of someone else's decision making.

Conversely, individual Americans do not necessarily chose not to have universal access to health care.  Individuals without access to health care, may have a lower life expectancy and (to put it bluntly) be bringing the average life expectancy down.  In this case the difference between life expectancy of individuals who can afford health care and those who cannot would be considered an inequity, as it it's the result of someone else's decision making.

No, Jon, that is not what I am saying (and I think you know that).

Let me repeat exactly what I wrote: "This would imply that, by itself, the difference in life expectancy between Luxemburg and Burundi is not an inequity, as we have no realistic means to make Burundi as rich as Luxemburg (but it will not come as a surprise that I will qualify this considerably in the next article in the series)."

Ahem, something went wrong when posting this reply. Please disregard the previous version (Alanna: can it be removed?). What I wanted to say:

No, Jon, that is not what I am saying (and I think you know that).

Let me repeat exactly what I wrote: "This would imply that, by itself, the difference in life expectancy between Luxemburg and Burundi is not an inequity, as we have no realistic means to make Burundi as rich as Luxemburg (but it will not come as a surprise that I will qualify this considerably in the next article in the series)."

I did not emphasise the words "by itself" without reason, nor did I add that last bracketed clause just as an afterthought. Although I might have to recant the "next article" part -- now that next post will be dedicated to Catee's response, I will most likely come back to this the post after.

Just out of curiosity: where did you get the life expectancy figures from? Latest I could find where 79 and 52, both from 2006, but perhaps you have more recent information?