全球健康指标:人类生命价值的定位差异

IF 0.9 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
O. Maldonado, Tiago Moreira
{"title":"全球健康指标:人类生命价值的定位差异","authors":"O. Maldonado, Tiago Moreira","doi":"10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.202-224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the role of knowledge, standards, and metrics in global health. Our point of departure is the observation that the emergence of ‘global health’ as a domain of research, policy, and practice in the last three decades or so has coincided with an increased interest in the validation and use of measures of health, such as the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY), in monitoring and assessing health equity across territories and populations. This ‘elective affinity’ between global health and health metrics has become the focus of scholarly debate in the social sciences. In this paper, we seek to contextualise and critically discuss the different positions in this debate. We suggest that emplacing health metrics within the neo-liberal logic of health production –one where the ‘mechanisms of life’ are aligned with the maximisation of economic productivity- does not fully capture the interactive relationship between health measurement and the politics of health. Instead, we argue that this relationship has been characterised by controversy and uncertainty about how to interlock normative ideals and approaches to knowledge-making about health.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metrics in Global Health: Situated Differences in the Valuation of Human Life\",\"authors\":\"O. Maldonado, Tiago Moreira\",\"doi\":\"10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.202-224\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores the role of knowledge, standards, and metrics in global health. Our point of departure is the observation that the emergence of ‘global health’ as a domain of research, policy, and practice in the last three decades or so has coincided with an increased interest in the validation and use of measures of health, such as the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY), in monitoring and assessing health equity across territories and populations. This ‘elective affinity’ between global health and health metrics has become the focus of scholarly debate in the social sciences. In this paper, we seek to contextualise and critically discuss the different positions in this debate. We suggest that emplacing health metrics within the neo-liberal logic of health production –one where the ‘mechanisms of life’ are aligned with the maximisation of economic productivity- does not fully capture the interactive relationship between health measurement and the politics of health. Instead, we argue that this relationship has been characterised by controversy and uncertainty about how to interlock normative ideals and approaches to knowledge-making about health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.202-224\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.202-224","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

本文探讨了知识、标准和指标在全球健康中的作用。我们的出发点是观察到,在过去三十年左右的时间里,“全球健康”作为一个研究、政策和实践领域的出现,与人们对验证和使用健康指标(如残疾调整生命年)在监测和评估各地区和人群的健康公平性方面的兴趣增加相吻合。全球健康和健康指标之间的这种“选择性亲和力”已成为社会科学学术辩论的焦点。在本文中,我们试图将这场辩论中的不同立场置于背景中,并进行批判性的讨论。我们认为,将健康指标置于健康生产的新自由主义逻辑中——“生活机制”与经济生产力的最大化相一致——并不能完全捕捉到健康测量与健康政治之间的互动关系。相反,我们认为,这种关系的特点是关于如何将规范性理想和健康知识创造方法相互联系的争议和不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metrics in Global Health: Situated Differences in the Valuation of Human Life
This paper explores the role of knowledge, standards, and metrics in global health. Our point of departure is the observation that the emergence of ‘global health’ as a domain of research, policy, and practice in the last three decades or so has coincided with an increased interest in the validation and use of measures of health, such as the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY), in monitoring and assessing health equity across territories and populations. This ‘elective affinity’ between global health and health metrics has become the focus of scholarly debate in the social sciences. In this paper, we seek to contextualise and critically discuss the different positions in this debate. We suggest that emplacing health metrics within the neo-liberal logic of health production –one where the ‘mechanisms of life’ are aligned with the maximisation of economic productivity- does not fully capture the interactive relationship between health measurement and the politics of health. Instead, we argue that this relationship has been characterised by controversy and uncertainty about how to interlock normative ideals and approaches to knowledge-making about health.
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
CiteScore
2.30
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