Painful justice: an ethical perspective on the allocation of trauma services in Australia.

A Sloane
{"title":"Painful justice: an ethical perspective on the allocation of trauma services in Australia.","authors":"A Sloane","doi":"10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04671.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Australia faces general and particular problems in the just distribution of trauma services, such as a proliferation of expensive technologies, economic and geographic limitations on their provision, and inequities in allocation. The ethics of shalom in which people live in harmonious relationships with each other, the world and God provide a moral framework for the discussion of the allocation of health care. Ethics deal with people and their relationships, which entails examining the nature and consequences of an action or policy and the character of the persons and institutions involved. The goal of health care, including trauma services, is not to 'fight disease' or to improve the health of the community, but to return people to proper functioning as people-in-relationships, as far as this is practicable. In applying this to the equitable provision of trauma services in Australia, we should distinguish between sustenance rights and community-provided mercies. The former are basic services that we need in order to function meaningfully in the community, and to which we are entitled (eg., basic health care). The latter are other benefits that we as members of the community choose to provide for each other, but to which we are not entitled per se (eg., ICU, Tertiary Trauma Centres). We should do all we reasonably can to ensure that all people receive their healthcare sustenance rights, that healthcare mercies are equitably distributed, and that the person-orientation of health care is maintained in the face of 'technological imperatives'.</p>","PeriodicalId":22494,"journal":{"name":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery","volume":"68 11","pages":"760-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04671.x","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04671.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Australia faces general and particular problems in the just distribution of trauma services, such as a proliferation of expensive technologies, economic and geographic limitations on their provision, and inequities in allocation. The ethics of shalom in which people live in harmonious relationships with each other, the world and God provide a moral framework for the discussion of the allocation of health care. Ethics deal with people and their relationships, which entails examining the nature and consequences of an action or policy and the character of the persons and institutions involved. The goal of health care, including trauma services, is not to 'fight disease' or to improve the health of the community, but to return people to proper functioning as people-in-relationships, as far as this is practicable. In applying this to the equitable provision of trauma services in Australia, we should distinguish between sustenance rights and community-provided mercies. The former are basic services that we need in order to function meaningfully in the community, and to which we are entitled (eg., basic health care). The latter are other benefits that we as members of the community choose to provide for each other, but to which we are not entitled per se (eg., ICU, Tertiary Trauma Centres). We should do all we reasonably can to ensure that all people receive their healthcare sustenance rights, that healthcare mercies are equitably distributed, and that the person-orientation of health care is maintained in the face of 'technological imperatives'.

痛苦的正义:对澳大利亚创伤服务分配的伦理观点。
澳大利亚在公平分配创伤服务方面面临着普遍和特殊的问题,例如昂贵技术的扩散、提供这些服务的经济和地理限制以及分配方面的不平等。人们生活在彼此、世界和上帝之间的和谐关系中的平安伦理为讨论卫生保健的分配提供了道德框架。伦理学涉及人和他们之间的关系,这需要检查一项行动或政策的性质和后果以及所涉及的人和机构的性质。包括创伤服务在内的卫生保健的目标不是“与疾病作斗争”或改善社区的健康状况,而是在切实可行的情况下,使人们恢复作为人际关系中的人的正常功能。在将这一原则应用于澳大利亚公平提供创伤服务时,我们应该区分维持权利和社区提供的救济。前者是我们需要的基本服务,以便在社区中有意义地发挥作用,我们有权获得这些服务。(基本保健)。后者是我们作为社区成员选择为彼此提供的其他福利,但我们本身没有权利(例如:(ICU,三级创伤中心)。我们应尽一切合理的努力,确保所有人都能获得医疗保健的生存权,公平分配医疗保健救济,并在“技术要求”面前保持以人为本的医疗保健。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信