The role of the concept of solidarity for just distribution of bioethical goods in the international area

IF 2.1 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-02-17 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13271
Nadja Wolf
{"title":"The role of the concept of solidarity for just distribution of bioethical goods in the international area","authors":"Nadja Wolf","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This analysis investigates whether solidarity is an appropriate concept for thinking about justifications for a just distribution of bioethical goods in the international arena. This will be explored by looking at the national origins of the idea of justifying solidarity in the form of the health care that welfare states offer. Following that, ‘life’ and ‘health’ will be placed within a philosophical context by focusing on the main arguments of John Rawls and Amartya Sen and the role of solidarity in these two theories of justice will be analysed. It will be shown that these theories assume that solidarity is not a prerequisite for just international structures. Finally, the possibility will be discussed, that there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding justifications for fair distribution in the international context that can result when the concepts of solidarity and justice are handled imprecisely.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"38 4","pages":"344-350"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13271","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13271","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This analysis investigates whether solidarity is an appropriate concept for thinking about justifications for a just distribution of bioethical goods in the international arena. This will be explored by looking at the national origins of the idea of justifying solidarity in the form of the health care that welfare states offer. Following that, ‘life’ and ‘health’ will be placed within a philosophical context by focusing on the main arguments of John Rawls and Amartya Sen and the role of solidarity in these two theories of justice will be analysed. It will be shown that these theories assume that solidarity is not a prerequisite for just international structures. Finally, the possibility will be discussed, that there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding justifications for fair distribution in the international context that can result when the concepts of solidarity and justice are handled imprecisely.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
团结互助的概念对在国际领域公正分配生物伦理物品的作用。
本分析将探讨团结互助是否是一个合适的概念,用于思考在国际舞台上公正分配生物伦理物品的理由。我们将通过研究以福利国家提供的医疗保健为形式的团结互助理念的国家起源来探讨这一问题。随后,将把 "生命 "和 "健康 "置于哲学背景下,重点研究约翰-罗尔斯和阿马蒂亚-森的主要论点,并分析团结在这两种正义理论中的作用。这些理论认为,团结并不是公正的国际结构的先决条件。最后,还将讨论一种可能性,即在国际背景下公平分配的理由存在一定程度的不确定性,如果不精确地处理团结和正义的概念,就会导致这种不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
期刊最新文献
Dual Use Research of Concern-The Necessity of Global Bioethics Engagement. Pain, Power, and Policing: Emotional Injustice in Healthcare. Are Conscientious Refusal and Conscientious Provision Mutually Exclusive? A Critique of Kelusa and Giubilini's Argument. Three Sources of Incapacity in Anorexia Nervosa. Why Antinatalism and Procreative Beneficence Do Not Mix.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1