对危险和危险行为的管制。

T L Beauchamp
{"title":"对危险和危险行为的管制。","authors":"T L Beauchamp","doi":"10.1177/109019817800600207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Risks to individuals engaged in \"high risk\" behaviors may be present because of the individual's own actions, as in the case of smoking. Alternatively, the risks may be present either because of factors in the environment such as carcinogens, or because of the causal actions of others, such as pollution by industries. Traditionally, justifications for policies that would control hazards and restrict hazardous behaviors have been based on paternalistic principles or on a theory of social justice. Arguments for both are criticized and rejected in favor of a third alternative rooted in utilitarian moral theory. It is argued that: (1) paternalism leads to unacceptable consequences because it would allow too much limitation of individual liberty by policy makers; (2) justice-based arguments are too abstract for public policy problems and often rest on questionable empirical assumptions; and (3) utilitarian suggestions about the use of cost-benefit analysis for the resolution of these health policy problems are more promising than available alternatives, because they provide a solid moral basis for allocating scarce resources and for controlling hazardous behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":75897,"journal":{"name":"Health education monographs","volume":"6 2","pages":"242-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1978-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/109019817800600207","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The regulation of hazards and hazardous behaviors.\",\"authors\":\"T L Beauchamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/109019817800600207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Risks to individuals engaged in \\\"high risk\\\" behaviors may be present because of the individual's own actions, as in the case of smoking. Alternatively, the risks may be present either because of factors in the environment such as carcinogens, or because of the causal actions of others, such as pollution by industries. Traditionally, justifications for policies that would control hazards and restrict hazardous behaviors have been based on paternalistic principles or on a theory of social justice. Arguments for both are criticized and rejected in favor of a third alternative rooted in utilitarian moral theory. It is argued that: (1) paternalism leads to unacceptable consequences because it would allow too much limitation of individual liberty by policy makers; (2) justice-based arguments are too abstract for public policy problems and often rest on questionable empirical assumptions; and (3) utilitarian suggestions about the use of cost-benefit analysis for the resolution of these health policy problems are more promising than available alternatives, because they provide a solid moral basis for allocating scarce resources and for controlling hazardous behaviors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75897,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health education monographs\",\"volume\":\"6 2\",\"pages\":\"242-57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1978-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/109019817800600207\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health education monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817800600207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health education monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817800600207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

从事“高风险”行为的个人所面临的风险可能是由于个人自身的行为,比如吸烟。另一种情况是,风险的存在可能是由于环境中的因素,如致癌物,或由于其他因素的因果作用,如工业污染。传统上,控制危险和限制危险行为的政策的理由是基于家长式的原则或社会正义理论。这两种观点都受到了批评和拒绝,而第三种观点则植根于功利主义的道德理论。本文认为:(1)家长式作风会导致不可接受的后果,因为它允许决策者对个人自由进行过多的限制;(2)基于正义的论证对于公共政策问题来说过于抽象,往往建立在有问题的经验假设之上;(3)使用成本效益分析来解决这些卫生政策问题的实用主义建议比现有的替代方案更有希望,因为它们为分配稀缺资源和控制有害行为提供了坚实的道德基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The regulation of hazards and hazardous behaviors.

Risks to individuals engaged in "high risk" behaviors may be present because of the individual's own actions, as in the case of smoking. Alternatively, the risks may be present either because of factors in the environment such as carcinogens, or because of the causal actions of others, such as pollution by industries. Traditionally, justifications for policies that would control hazards and restrict hazardous behaviors have been based on paternalistic principles or on a theory of social justice. Arguments for both are criticized and rejected in favor of a third alternative rooted in utilitarian moral theory. It is argued that: (1) paternalism leads to unacceptable consequences because it would allow too much limitation of individual liberty by policy makers; (2) justice-based arguments are too abstract for public policy problems and often rest on questionable empirical assumptions; and (3) utilitarian suggestions about the use of cost-benefit analysis for the resolution of these health policy problems are more promising than available alternatives, because they provide a solid moral basis for allocating scarce resources and for controlling hazardous behaviors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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