大规模伤亡情况下的分类

T. Tännsjö
{"title":"大规模伤亡情况下的分类","authors":"T. Tännsjö","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190946883.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In situations of mass casualty there is a need to tend to the medical supply side. We must contemplate whether, by saving one person rather than another, we affect the medical resources available to us. Should medical personnel be tended to first if this means that those who are saved first can go on to save other lives? When resources are scare, should younger patients be treated rather than old ones? The unexpectedly similar implications of the three theories of distributive justice in situations of mass casualty are presented. Here a discussion is also undertaken about equity and the idea that we should save as many lives as possible. Does it make sense to flip a coin when you decide about priority setting in a triage situation? Could saving as many lives as possible work as a proxy for utilitarian thinking? Both the equity view and the idea that one should save as many lives as possible are rejected. It is argued that we should rely on our favoured theories: utilitarianism (with or without a prioritarian amendment), the maximin/leximin theory, and egalitarianism.","PeriodicalId":422224,"journal":{"name":"Setting Health-Care Priorities","volume":"153 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Triage in Situations of Mass Casualty\",\"authors\":\"T. Tännsjö\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780190946883.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In situations of mass casualty there is a need to tend to the medical supply side. We must contemplate whether, by saving one person rather than another, we affect the medical resources available to us. Should medical personnel be tended to first if this means that those who are saved first can go on to save other lives? When resources are scare, should younger patients be treated rather than old ones? The unexpectedly similar implications of the three theories of distributive justice in situations of mass casualty are presented. Here a discussion is also undertaken about equity and the idea that we should save as many lives as possible. Does it make sense to flip a coin when you decide about priority setting in a triage situation? Could saving as many lives as possible work as a proxy for utilitarian thinking? Both the equity view and the idea that one should save as many lives as possible are rejected. It is argued that we should rely on our favoured theories: utilitarianism (with or without a prioritarian amendment), the maximin/leximin theory, and egalitarianism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":422224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Setting Health-Care Priorities\",\"volume\":\"153 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Setting Health-Care Priorities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190946883.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Setting Health-Care Priorities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190946883.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在发生大规模伤亡的情况下,需要关注医疗供应方面。我们必须考虑,拯救一个人而不是另一个人,是否会影响我们现有的医疗资源。如果首先获救的人可以继续挽救其他人的生命,那么医务人员是否应该首先得到照顾?当资源紧张时,应该治疗年轻患者而不是老年患者吗?在大规模伤亡的情况下,提出了三种分配正义理论的意想不到的相似含义。这里还讨论了公平和我们应该尽可能多地挽救生命的想法。当你决定在分诊情况下的优先级设置时,抛硬币有意义吗?拯救尽可能多的生命能代替功利主义思维吗?公平观点和一个人应该尽可能多地拯救生命的观点都被拒绝了。有人认为,我们应该依靠我们喜欢的理论:功利主义(有或没有优先主义的修正),最大限度/限度明理论,和平等主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Triage in Situations of Mass Casualty
In situations of mass casualty there is a need to tend to the medical supply side. We must contemplate whether, by saving one person rather than another, we affect the medical resources available to us. Should medical personnel be tended to first if this means that those who are saved first can go on to save other lives? When resources are scare, should younger patients be treated rather than old ones? The unexpectedly similar implications of the three theories of distributive justice in situations of mass casualty are presented. Here a discussion is also undertaken about equity and the idea that we should save as many lives as possible. Does it make sense to flip a coin when you decide about priority setting in a triage situation? Could saving as many lives as possible work as a proxy for utilitarian thinking? Both the equity view and the idea that one should save as many lives as possible are rejected. It is argued that we should rely on our favoured theories: utilitarianism (with or without a prioritarian amendment), the maximin/leximin theory, and egalitarianism.
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