Time to expand a paradigm: Healthcare sustainability and eco-ethical assessment.

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-25 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70008
Luca Valera
{"title":"Time to expand a paradigm: Healthcare sustainability and eco-ethical assessment.","authors":"Luca Valera","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper aims to rethink healthcare sustainability from an eco-ethical approach, mainly referring to van Rensselaer Potter's global bioethics and Arne Naess's ecosophy. In this sense, it seeks to address the ethical problem of allocating resources from a non-individualist and essentially bio-medical perspective, which interprets health (or disease) as a mere feature of the individual. On the contrary, starting from a planetary health approach (Potter) and an \"ecosophical\" view of human beings (Næss), individual health gains meaning in a broader context. At the ethical level, this implies: 1. a focus on the patient's wellbeing, more than his/her diagnosis and cure; 2. a conception of shared responsibility and agency of all stakeholders; 3. the pursuit of ecologically sound decisions that go beyond the individual; 4. promoting environmental stewardship, which may overcome the dichotomy between anthropocentrism and biocentrism; and 5. pursuing epistemic humility. All these pragmatic considerations may inspire the construction of environmentally sustainable health systems. In this regard, the paradigm proposed in this paper is principally directed to healthcare organizations, and not to the particular doctor-patient relationship, where the classical principles of bio-medical ethics might still be appropriate. This non-exclusionary approach allows the integration of the two facets of bioethics: Georgetown bio-medical ethics (Kennedy Institute) and Wisconsin global bioethics (Potter).</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper aims to rethink healthcare sustainability from an eco-ethical approach, mainly referring to van Rensselaer Potter's global bioethics and Arne Naess's ecosophy. In this sense, it seeks to address the ethical problem of allocating resources from a non-individualist and essentially bio-medical perspective, which interprets health (or disease) as a mere feature of the individual. On the contrary, starting from a planetary health approach (Potter) and an "ecosophical" view of human beings (Næss), individual health gains meaning in a broader context. At the ethical level, this implies: 1. a focus on the patient's wellbeing, more than his/her diagnosis and cure; 2. a conception of shared responsibility and agency of all stakeholders; 3. the pursuit of ecologically sound decisions that go beyond the individual; 4. promoting environmental stewardship, which may overcome the dichotomy between anthropocentrism and biocentrism; and 5. pursuing epistemic humility. All these pragmatic considerations may inspire the construction of environmentally sustainable health systems. In this regard, the paradigm proposed in this paper is principally directed to healthcare organizations, and not to the particular doctor-patient relationship, where the classical principles of bio-medical ethics might still be appropriate. This non-exclusionary approach allows the integration of the two facets of bioethics: Georgetown bio-medical ethics (Kennedy Institute) and Wisconsin global bioethics (Potter).

是时候扩展一个范例了:医疗保健可持续性和生态伦理评估。
本文旨在从生态伦理的角度重新思考医疗保健的可持续性,主要参考van Rensselaer Potter的全球生物伦理和Arne Naess的生态哲学。从这个意义上说,它试图从非个人主义和本质上是生物医学的角度来解决分配资源的伦理问题,这种观点将健康(或疾病)解释为仅仅是个人的特征。相反,从行星健康方法(波特)和人类的“生态”观点(Næss)出发,个人健康在更广泛的背景下具有意义。在道德层面,这意味着:1。关注病人的健康,而不是他/她的诊断和治疗;2. 所有利益相关者的共同责任和代理的概念;3. 追求超越个人的对生态无害的决定;4. 促进环境管理,这可能克服人类中心主义和生物中心主义之间的二分法;和5。追求认知上的谦逊。所有这些务实的考虑可能会启发环境可持续卫生系统的建设。在这方面,本文中提出的范式主要针对医疗保健组织,而不是针对特定的医患关系,在那里,经典的生物医学伦理原则可能仍然是合适的。这种非排斥性的方法允许生物伦理学的两个方面的整合:乔治敦生物医学伦理学(肯尼迪研究所)和威斯康星全球生物伦理学(波特)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信