重要事项:奥林匹克、自治和卫生改革的伦理。

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Joona Räsänen, Johanna Ahola-Launonen
{"title":"重要事项:奥林匹克、自治和卫生改革的伦理。","authors":"Joona Räsänen, Johanna Ahola-Launonen","doi":"10.1136/jme-2025-111117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ryan and Savulescu recently offered an ethical analysis of the use of semaglutide-based weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic. In this response, we continue the discussion and argue that their framework insufficiently addresses structural inequalities and the broader political context of obesity treatment. Positioning pharmaceutical drugs as a solution to socially produced health problems narrows moral decision-making, causing structural approaches to appear less urgent and less important. We criticise the individualistic conception of autonomy commonly invoked to justify pharmaceutical choice, arguing that a proper definition of autonomy requires attention to social contexts-stigma, discrimination and economic inequality-that shape treatment decisions. We call for a broader ethical framework-one that interrogates structural injustices and reimagines health interventions beyond individual treatment-asking: is the problem our bodies or unregulated markets and environments that produce ill health in them?</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Weighty matters: Ozempic, autonomy and the ethics of health reform.\",\"authors\":\"Joona Räsänen, Johanna Ahola-Launonen\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2025-111117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ryan and Savulescu recently offered an ethical analysis of the use of semaglutide-based weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic. In this response, we continue the discussion and argue that their framework insufficiently addresses structural inequalities and the broader political context of obesity treatment. Positioning pharmaceutical drugs as a solution to socially produced health problems narrows moral decision-making, causing structural approaches to appear less urgent and less important. We criticise the individualistic conception of autonomy commonly invoked to justify pharmaceutical choice, arguing that a proper definition of autonomy requires attention to social contexts-stigma, discrimination and economic inequality-that shape treatment decisions. We call for a broader ethical framework-one that interrogates structural injustices and reimagines health interventions beyond individual treatment-asking: is the problem our bodies or unregulated markets and environments that produce ill health in them?</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-111117\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-111117","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Ryan和Savulescu最近对使用西马柳肽类减肥药(如Ozempic)进行了伦理分析。在这个回应中,我们继续讨论,并认为他们的框架不足以解决结构性不平等和肥胖治疗的更广泛的政治背景。将药品定位为社会产生的健康问题的解决方案,缩小了道德决策的范围,导致结构性方法显得不那么紧迫和不那么重要。我们批评了通常用来为药物选择辩护的个人主义自治概念,认为自治的适当定义需要关注社会背景-污名,歧视和经济不平等-影响治疗决策。我们呼吁建立一个更广泛的伦理框架——一个对结构性不公正进行质疑,并重新设想超越个人治疗的健康干预措施的框架——并提出这样的问题:是我们的身体还是不受监管的市场和环境导致了它们的不健康?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Weighty matters: Ozempic, autonomy and the ethics of health reform.

Ryan and Savulescu recently offered an ethical analysis of the use of semaglutide-based weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic. In this response, we continue the discussion and argue that their framework insufficiently addresses structural inequalities and the broader political context of obesity treatment. Positioning pharmaceutical drugs as a solution to socially produced health problems narrows moral decision-making, causing structural approaches to appear less urgent and less important. We criticise the individualistic conception of autonomy commonly invoked to justify pharmaceutical choice, arguing that a proper definition of autonomy requires attention to social contexts-stigma, discrimination and economic inequality-that shape treatment decisions. We call for a broader ethical framework-one that interrogates structural injustices and reimagines health interventions beyond individual treatment-asking: is the problem our bodies or unregulated markets and environments that produce ill health in them?

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 Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
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