In 2005 the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care (ESPMH) initiated an annual contest for young scholars. Every year an ESPMH prize is awarded to a scholar younger than 35 years of age for a scientific contribution on ethical, epistemological, or other philosophical topics relating to medicine and health care. The first paper in this issue, ‘On the relationship between individual and population health’, has been written by the winner of this prize in 2007, Onyebuchi A. Arah. Compared to the idea of individual health, ‘population health’ is a relatively new, rather fashionable term in the field of medicine and health care. The relationship between individual and population health is partially built on the dichotomization of medicine into clinical medicine and public health. Individual and population health are often seen as absolute and independent concepts. Onyebuchi A. Arah argues that the relationship between the two is largely relative and dynamic. His argument is based on an attempt to include a population perspective on health in definitions of health, particularly by emphasizing the role of the ‘context’ component of any notion of health. The second contribution in this issue, written by Shawn H. E. Harmon, also deals with public health, but this paper is more practical in nature. After having reminded us of the fact that public health is a multidisciplinary and complex phenomenon, the author argues that public health promotion is a moral duty and that, although multiple actors are relevant and necessary to fulfilling this duty, the role of international actors is paramount. The paper especially focuses on one of the most important international organizations in this field, that is, the World Health Organization (WHO). Shawn H. E. Harmon argues that better health can and must be better promoted through a more robust interpretation of the WHO’s role. Together with other international organizations, he argues, the WHO has not yet played its necessary part in promoting ‘health for all’. The third paper, written by Rui Nunes, Guilhermina Rego and Christina Brandao, leaves the difference between individual and public health for what it is. The authors evaluate the role of independent regulatory agencies in the field of health care, as compared to the role of traditional public regulations, with regard to a fair process of equal access to health care and of setting limits to health care. In their argument Norman Daniels’ and James Sabin’s theory of accountability for reasonableness plays a central role. The authors conclude that accountability for reasonableness should be regarded as a landmark of any health care reform. The rationale for limit-setting decisions must be clearly communicated toward the public. Karin Dahlberg, Les Todres and Kathleen Galvin focus on individual health care. They critically review the common standard of ‘patient-centred’ or ‘patient-led’ health care and argue that current patient-led approaches hinder a focus on a deeper understanding of what patient-led care could be. Based on various phenomenological and existential insights they present an alternative interpretation of patient-led care which they call ‘lifeworld-led care’. A philosophy of the person, a view of well-being, and a philosophy of care should be key elements in the further development of this ‘lifeworld-led care’. With the paper of Juha Raikka, ‘The ethical and political evaluation of biotechnology strategies’, we enter a new category of topics in this issue, that is, regulatory aspects of research and new biotechnologies. Juha Raikka focuses on W. Dekkers (&) B. Gordijn UMC St Radboud Nijmegen, 114 IQ Healthcare, Section Ethics, PO Box 9101, 6500 Nijmegen, HB, The Netherlands e-mail: w.dekkers@iq.umcn.nl