Healthcare, Healthcare Resource Allocation, and Rationing: Pragmatist Reflections

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Contemporary Pragmatism Pub Date : 2022-08-04 DOI:10.1163/18758185-bja10046
B. Taye, Andebet Hailu Assefa
{"title":"Healthcare, Healthcare Resource Allocation, and Rationing: Pragmatist Reflections","authors":"B. Taye, Andebet Hailu Assefa","doi":"10.1163/18758185-bja10046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article approaches the ethical dilemma of healthcare allocation and rationing from the perspective of pragmatist ethics, mainly following John Dewey’s ethics. The moral dilemma of healthcare allocation arises whenever we allocate limited resources, and rationing is a necessary option for distributing available resources. In a broader sense, the moral problems of healthcare allocation also encompass the issue of access to primary healthcare, especially for low-income sections of communities. In this sense, allocation always entails rationing – denying service to someone for the benefit of others. Such aspects of allocation and rationing and the relational aspect of disease and health make the problem morally controversial, which makes it difficult to agree on a principle or principles of allocation and rationing applicable across different contexts. Hence, this paper argues that moral challenges of healthcare rationing ought not to be addressed through the appeal to principles, but rather through deliberation that embraces a more pragmatic and democratic approach to negotiating health resource allocation and rationing. However, this does not mean that moral principles and values are insignificant in healthcare allocation.","PeriodicalId":42794,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Pragmatism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Pragmatism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-bja10046","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article approaches the ethical dilemma of healthcare allocation and rationing from the perspective of pragmatist ethics, mainly following John Dewey’s ethics. The moral dilemma of healthcare allocation arises whenever we allocate limited resources, and rationing is a necessary option for distributing available resources. In a broader sense, the moral problems of healthcare allocation also encompass the issue of access to primary healthcare, especially for low-income sections of communities. In this sense, allocation always entails rationing – denying service to someone for the benefit of others. Such aspects of allocation and rationing and the relational aspect of disease and health make the problem morally controversial, which makes it difficult to agree on a principle or principles of allocation and rationing applicable across different contexts. Hence, this paper argues that moral challenges of healthcare rationing ought not to be addressed through the appeal to principles, but rather through deliberation that embraces a more pragmatic and democratic approach to negotiating health resource allocation and rationing. However, this does not mean that moral principles and values are insignificant in healthcare allocation.
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
医疗保健、医疗资源分配和配给:实用主义者的反思
本文主要遵循杜威的伦理学思想,从实用主义伦理学的角度探讨医疗分配与配给的伦理困境。每当我们分配有限的资源时,就会出现医疗分配的道德困境,而配给是分配可用资源的必要选择。从更广泛的意义上讲,医疗保健分配的道德问题还包括获得初级医疗保健的问题,尤其是对社区的低收入阶层而言。从这个意义上说,分配总是意味着定量配给——为了他人的利益而拒绝为某人提供服务。分配和配给的这些方面以及疾病和健康的关系方面使这个问题在道德上具有争议,这使得很难就适用于不同背景的分配和配给原则达成一致。因此,本文认为,医疗配给的道德挑战不应该通过呼吁原则来解决,而应该通过审议来解决,这种审议包括一种更务实和民主的方式来谈判医疗资源分配和配给。然而,这并不意味着道德原则和价值观在医疗分配中是微不足道的。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Pragmatism as a Compatible Theoretical Lens for Mixed Methods Research in Prehospital Care Democracy as Communication: Towards a Normative Framework for Evaluating Digital Technologies Postpragmatism: Quine, Rorty, and a thoroughgoing Atheoreticism Resonant Experience: An Exploration of the Relational Nature of Meaning and Value Jane Addams and the Limits of Sympathy. Failures, Corrections, and Lessons to be Learned
×
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:481959085
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