医疗公正:保护自尊,而不是机会。

IF 1.5 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
R Ameresekere
{"title":"医疗公正:保护自尊,而不是机会。","authors":"R Ameresekere","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10432-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Why is healthcare \"special\" to the extent that it should be distributed more equally than other social goods, as a matter of justice? Norman Daniels claims that healthcare is special because it protects the normal range of opportunities available to us, and therefore can be subsumed under a principle of justice which establishes that opportunity ought to be equally distributed. I argue that subsuming healthcare under such a principle leads to de facto discrimination against certain people in virtue of their healthcare needs. This is because-as a critical discussion of health and healthcare needs importantly illustrates-much of the healthcare that people need simply cannot or does not protect normal species function and therefore does not protect opportunity. And so, such healthcare needs go unfairly unmet on Daniels' view. Instead, I suggest that we ought to subsume healthcare under a principle of equally distributing the social bases of self-respect. Though the healthcare that many of us need cannot protect opportunity, it can still protect our sense of self-respect; as such, those who need such care are entitled to it as a matter of justice on the self-respect view. The self-respect view thus avoids de facto discrimination and ultimately meets healthcare needs more fairly. And because it does so by eschewing a controversial conception of health and healthcare, instead appealing to a conception that appears freestanding with respect to the doctrines that citizens might reasonably disagree about, it better satisfies the requirements of public justification.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare Justice: Protecting Self-Respect, Not Opportunity.\",\"authors\":\"R Ameresekere\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-025-10432-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Why is healthcare \\\"special\\\" to the extent that it should be distributed more equally than other social goods, as a matter of justice? Norman Daniels claims that healthcare is special because it protects the normal range of opportunities available to us, and therefore can be subsumed under a principle of justice which establishes that opportunity ought to be equally distributed. I argue that subsuming healthcare under such a principle leads to de facto discrimination against certain people in virtue of their healthcare needs. This is because-as a critical discussion of health and healthcare needs importantly illustrates-much of the healthcare that people need simply cannot or does not protect normal species function and therefore does not protect opportunity. And so, such healthcare needs go unfairly unmet on Daniels' view. Instead, I suggest that we ought to subsume healthcare under a principle of equally distributing the social bases of self-respect. Though the healthcare that many of us need cannot protect opportunity, it can still protect our sense of self-respect; as such, those who need such care are entitled to it as a matter of justice on the self-respect view. The self-respect view thus avoids de facto discrimination and ultimately meets healthcare needs more fairly. And because it does so by eschewing a controversial conception of health and healthcare, instead appealing to a conception that appears freestanding with respect to the doctrines that citizens might reasonably disagree about, it better satisfies the requirements of public justification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10432-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10432-9","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

为什么医疗保健是“特殊的”,以至于它应该比其他社会产品更公平地分配,作为一个正义问题?诺曼·丹尼尔斯声称,医疗保健是特殊的,因为它保护了我们可以获得的正常范围的机会,因此可以纳入正义原则,该原则规定机会应该平等分配。我认为,将医疗保健纳入这一原则会导致某些人因其医疗保健需求而受到事实上的歧视。这是因为——正如一篇关于健康和医疗保健需求的批判性讨论所重要说明的那样——人们需要的大部分医疗保健根本不能或不能保护正常的物种功能,因此也不能保护机会。因此,在丹尼尔斯看来,这样的医疗需求得不到满足是不公平的。相反,我建议我们应该将医疗纳入平等分配自尊社会基础的原则之下。虽然我们许多人需要的医疗保健不能保护机会,但它仍然可以保护我们的自尊;因此,从自尊的角度来看,那些需要这种照顾的人有权得到这种照顾。因此,自尊的观点避免了事实上的歧视,最终更公平地满足了医疗保健需求。因为它避开了一个有争议的健康和医疗保健概念,而是诉诸于一个独立的概念,相对于公民可能有理由不同意的理论,它更好地满足了公众辩护的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Healthcare Justice: Protecting Self-Respect, Not Opportunity.

Why is healthcare "special" to the extent that it should be distributed more equally than other social goods, as a matter of justice? Norman Daniels claims that healthcare is special because it protects the normal range of opportunities available to us, and therefore can be subsumed under a principle of justice which establishes that opportunity ought to be equally distributed. I argue that subsuming healthcare under such a principle leads to de facto discrimination against certain people in virtue of their healthcare needs. This is because-as a critical discussion of health and healthcare needs importantly illustrates-much of the healthcare that people need simply cannot or does not protect normal species function and therefore does not protect opportunity. And so, such healthcare needs go unfairly unmet on Daniels' view. Instead, I suggest that we ought to subsume healthcare under a principle of equally distributing the social bases of self-respect. Though the healthcare that many of us need cannot protect opportunity, it can still protect our sense of self-respect; as such, those who need such care are entitled to it as a matter of justice on the self-respect view. The self-respect view thus avoids de facto discrimination and ultimately meets healthcare needs more fairly. And because it does so by eschewing a controversial conception of health and healthcare, instead appealing to a conception that appears freestanding with respect to the doctrines that citizens might reasonably disagree about, it better satisfies the requirements of public justification.

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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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