医疗保健如何看待人类灭绝的伦理？

Q2 Social Sciences

AMA journal of ethics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1001/amajethics.2025.549

Devin M Kellis, Émile P Torres

{"title":"医疗保健如何看待人类灭绝的伦理？","authors":"Devin M Kellis, Émile P Torres","doi":"10.1001/amajethics.2025.549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is there an important ethical difference between a global catastrophe that causes human extinction and one that does not? This commentary on a case introduces 3 approaches-equivalence, further-loss, and pro-extinctionist-in responding to this question. In particular, focus is placed on equivalence and further-loss views' implications for how clinicians, health professions, and health care organizations orient themselves ethically towards managing the risk of extinction.","PeriodicalId":38034,"journal":{"name":"AMA journal of ethics","volume":"27 8","pages":"E549-558"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Might Health Care Think About the Ethics of Human Extinction?\",\"authors\":\"Devin M Kellis, Émile P Torres\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/amajethics.2025.549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Is there an important ethical difference between a global catastrophe that causes human extinction and one that does not? This commentary on a case introduces 3 approaches-equivalence, further-loss, and pro-extinctionist-in responding to this question. In particular, focus is placed on equivalence and further-loss views' implications for how clinicians, health professions, and health care organizations orient themselves ethically towards managing the risk of extinction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMA journal of ethics\",\"volume\":\"27 8\",\"pages\":\"E549-558\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMA journal of ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2025.549\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMA journal of ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2025.549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

一场导致人类灭绝的全球灾难与一场不会导致人类灭绝的全球灾难之间是否存在重要的伦理差异？这篇关于一个案例的评论介绍了3种方法——等效、进一步损失和支持灭绝论——来回答这个问题。特别是，重点放在等效性和进一步损失观点对临床医生、卫生专业人员和卫生保健组织如何在道德上定位自己以管理灭绝风险的影响上。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

How Might Health Care Think About the Ethics of Human Extinction?

Is there an important ethical difference between a global catastrophe that causes human extinction and one that does not? This commentary on a case introduces 3 approaches-equivalence, further-loss, and pro-extinctionist-in responding to this question. In particular, focus is placed on equivalence and further-loss views' implications for how clinicians, health professions, and health care organizations orient themselves ethically towards managing the risk of extinction.

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

AMA journal of ethics Social Sciences-Health (social science)

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

146

期刊介绍： The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based and audio CME, visuals, and more. Since its inception as an editorially-independent journal, we promote ethics inquiry as a public good.