{"title":"互惠和留下来的责任","authors":"Daniel Dzah","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Some restrictionist arguments justifying the duty to stay as a means of addressing medical brain drain have relied on reciprocity as the moral basis for their policy proposals. In this essay, I argue that such reciprocity-based justifications for the duty to stay ignore crucial conditions of fittingness as relates to the funding of medical training.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reciprocity and the duty to stay\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Dzah\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Some restrictionist arguments justifying the duty to stay as a means of addressing medical brain drain have relied on reciprocity as the moral basis for their policy proposals. In this essay, I argue that such reciprocity-based justifications for the duty to stay ignore crucial conditions of fittingness as relates to the funding of medical training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Global Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Some restrictionist arguments justifying the duty to stay as a means of addressing medical brain drain have relied on reciprocity as the moral basis for their policy proposals. In this essay, I argue that such reciprocity-based justifications for the duty to stay ignore crucial conditions of fittingness as relates to the funding of medical training.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
