{"title":"减少伤害:用词不当。","authors":"Nicholas B King","doi":"10.1007/s10728-020-00413-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>'Harm reduction' programs are usually justified on the utilitarian grounds that they aim to reduce the net harms of a behavior. In this paper, I contend that (1) the historical genesis of harm reduction programs, and the crucial moral imperative that distinguishes these programs from other interventions and policies, are not utilitarian; (2) the practical implementation of harm reduction programs is not, and probably cannot be, utilitarian; and (3) the continued justification of harm reduction on utilitarian grounds is untenable and may itself cause harm. Promoting harm reduction programs as utilitarian in the public arena disregards their deeper prioritarian impulses. 'Harm reduction' is a misnomer, and the name should be abandoned sooner rather than later.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"28 4","pages":"324-334"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10728-020-00413-x","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harm Reduction: A Misnomer.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas B King\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-020-00413-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>'Harm reduction' programs are usually justified on the utilitarian grounds that they aim to reduce the net harms of a behavior. In this paper, I contend that (1) the historical genesis of harm reduction programs, and the crucial moral imperative that distinguishes these programs from other interventions and policies, are not utilitarian; (2) the practical implementation of harm reduction programs is not, and probably cannot be, utilitarian; and (3) the continued justification of harm reduction on utilitarian grounds is untenable and may itself cause harm. Promoting harm reduction programs as utilitarian in the public arena disregards their deeper prioritarian impulses. 'Harm reduction' is a misnomer, and the name should be abandoned sooner rather than later.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"324-334\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10728-020-00413-x\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00413-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/11/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00413-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
'Harm reduction' programs are usually justified on the utilitarian grounds that they aim to reduce the net harms of a behavior. In this paper, I contend that (1) the historical genesis of harm reduction programs, and the crucial moral imperative that distinguishes these programs from other interventions and policies, are not utilitarian; (2) the practical implementation of harm reduction programs is not, and probably cannot be, utilitarian; and (3) the continued justification of harm reduction on utilitarian grounds is untenable and may itself cause harm. Promoting harm reduction programs as utilitarian in the public arena disregards their deeper prioritarian impulses. 'Harm reduction' is a misnomer, and the name should be abandoned sooner rather than later.
期刊介绍：
Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
