生物伦理学、适应性偏好与残疾生活质量判断

Joseph A. Stramondo
{"title":"生物伦理学、适应性偏好与残疾生活质量判断","authors":"Joseph A. Stramondo","doi":"10.5840/SOCTHEORPRACT202121117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both mainstream and disability bioethics sometimes contend that the self-assessment of disabled people about their own well-being is distorted by adaptive preferences that are only held because other, better options are unavailable. I will argue that both of the most common ways of understanding adaptive preferences—the autonomy-based account and the well-being account—would reject blanket claims that disabled people’s QOL self-assessment has been distorted, whether those claims come from mainstream bioethicists or from disability bioethicists. However, rejecting these generalizations for a more nuanced view still has dramatic implications for the status quo in both health policy and clinical ethics.","PeriodicalId":82726,"journal":{"name":"Social theory and practice","volume":"47 1","pages":"199-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bioethics, Adaptive Preferences, and Judging the Quality of a Life with Disability\",\"authors\":\"Joseph A. Stramondo\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/SOCTHEORPRACT202121117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both mainstream and disability bioethics sometimes contend that the self-assessment of disabled people about their own well-being is distorted by adaptive preferences that are only held because other, better options are unavailable. I will argue that both of the most common ways of understanding adaptive preferences—the autonomy-based account and the well-being account—would reject blanket claims that disabled people’s QOL self-assessment has been distorted, whether those claims come from mainstream bioethicists or from disability bioethicists. However, rejecting these generalizations for a more nuanced view still has dramatic implications for the status quo in both health policy and clinical ethics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social theory and practice\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"199-220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social theory and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/SOCTHEORPRACT202121117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social theory and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/SOCTHEORPRACT202121117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

主流和残疾生物伦理学有时都认为,残疾人对自身福祉的自我评估被适应性偏好所扭曲,而适应性偏好只是因为没有其他更好的选择而被持有的。我认为,理解适应性偏好的两种最常见的方式——基于自主的账户和幸福账户——都会拒绝关于残疾人生活质量自我评估被扭曲的笼统说法,无论这些说法来自主流生物伦理学家还是残疾生物伦理学家。然而,为了更细致的观点而拒绝这些概括,仍然对卫生政策和临床伦理的现状产生了巨大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bioethics, Adaptive Preferences, and Judging the Quality of a Life with Disability
Both mainstream and disability bioethics sometimes contend that the self-assessment of disabled people about their own well-being is distorted by adaptive preferences that are only held because other, better options are unavailable. I will argue that both of the most common ways of understanding adaptive preferences—the autonomy-based account and the well-being account—would reject blanket claims that disabled people’s QOL self-assessment has been distorted, whether those claims come from mainstream bioethicists or from disability bioethicists. However, rejecting these generalizations for a more nuanced view still has dramatic implications for the status quo in both health policy and clinical ethics.
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
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