Public Health Ethics最新文献

英文中文

The Liberalism of Fear and Public Health Ethics 恐惧的自由主义与公共卫生伦理

IF 2.1 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phae001

Alvin Chen

This article argues that the liberalism of fear provides a useful theoretical framework for public health ethics in two fronts. First, it helps reconcile the tension between public health interventions and liberal politics. Second, it reinforces the existing justifications for public health interventions in liberal political culture. The article discusses this in the context of political emotions in the COVID-19 pandemic. Fear plays a central role in the experiences of pandemic politics, and such fear is extended to the concern that post-pandemic government would normalize emergency politics and threaten the political culture of liberal democracy. The article proposes that the liberalism of fear provides a theoretical solution not only to alleviate such fear, but also to reconcile the long-established tension between liberal politics and public health intervention. This is particularly so if the liberalism of fear’s characteristic of political realism is taken into account. The article makes two points about this, and discusses their pragmatic implications in the case of compulsory vaccination.

本文认为，恐惧自由主义在两个方面为公共卫生伦理提供了有用的理论框架。首先，它有助于调和公共卫生干预与自由主义政治之间的矛盾。其次，它强化了自由主义政治文化中现有的公共卫生干预理由。文章以 COVID-19 大流行中的政治情绪为背景对此进行了讨论。恐惧在大流行病政治经历中扮演着核心角色，这种恐惧延伸到了对大流行病后政府将使应急政治正常化并威胁自由民主政治文化的担忧。文章提出，恐惧的自由主义不仅为减轻这种恐惧提供了理论解决方案，而且还调和了自由主义政治与公共卫生干预之间长期存在的紧张关系。如果考虑到恐惧自由主义的政治现实主义特征，这一点尤为重要。文章就此提出了两个观点，并讨论了它们在强制疫苗接种中的实际意义。

引用次数: 0

Reciprocity, Fairness and the Financial Burden of Undertaking COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine in Australia. 互惠、公平与澳大利亚 COVID-19 酒店检疫的财政负担。

IF 1.4 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-12-20 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad027

Kari Pahlman, Jane Williams, Diego S Silva, Louis Taffs, Bridget Haire

In late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia introduced mandatory 14-day supervised quarantine at hotels and other designated facilities for all international arrivals. From July 2020, most states and territories introduced a fixed charge for quarantine of up to $3220 per adult. The introduction of the fee was rationalised on the basis that Australians had been allowed sufficient time to return and there was a need to recover some of the cost associated with administering the program. Drawing on an empirical study of 58 returned Australian citizens and residents quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021, this paper aims to explore how people experienced paying for hotel quarantine, particularly with respect to fairness and relatedly, the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that the state has an obligation to assist individuals in discharging their duty to comply with public health measures and avoid disproportionate burdens accruing to populations or individuals. Though participants had varying opinions on whether they thought it fair to be charged for their quarantine, for many, the fee constituted a significant burden and source of stress. Given the undertaking of quarantine is primarily for the benefit of the public good, we argue the financial cost imposed on individuals does not meet the demands of reciprocity. It is imperative that future quarantine and isolation arrangements consider seriously the need to minimise burdens of individuals subject to such measures, and that fees do not become a new norm in public health and infectious disease control.

为应对 COVID-19 大流行，澳大利亚于 2020 年 3 月下旬开始在酒店和其他指定设施对所有国际入境者实施为期 14 天的强制监督检疫。从 2020 年 7 月起，大多数州和地区开始对每名成人收取高达 3220 澳元的固定检疫费。收费合理化的依据是，澳大利亚人已经有足够的时间回国，而且有必要收回与管理该计划相关的部分成本。本文通过对 2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 1 月期间被隔离的 58 名回国澳大利亚公民和居民进行实证研究，旨在探讨人们如何体验酒店隔离费用，尤其是在公平性和相关的互惠原则方面。互惠原则要求国家有义务协助个人履行遵守公共卫生措施的义务，避免给人群或个人带来过重的负担。尽管与会者对检疫收费是否公平有不同的看法，但对许多人来说，收费是一个沉重的负担，也是压力的来源。鉴于进行检疫主要是为了公共利益，我们认为强加给个人的经济成本并不符合互惠的要求。当务之急是，未来的检疫和隔离安排应认真考虑尽量减轻受此类措施影响的个人负担的必要性，而且收费不应成为公共卫生和传染病控制的新规范。

{"title":"Reciprocity, Fairness and the Financial Burden of Undertaking COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine in Australia.","authors":"Kari Pahlman, Jane Williams, Diego S Silva, Louis Taffs, Bridget Haire","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad027","DOIUrl":"10.1093/phe/phad027","url":null,"abstract":"In late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia introduced mandatory 14-day supervised quarantine at hotels and other designated facilities for all international arrivals. From July 2020, most states and territories introduced a fixed charge for quarantine of up to $3220 per adult. The introduction of the fee was rationalised on the basis that Australians had been allowed sufficient time to return and there was a need to recover some of the cost associated with administering the program. Drawing on an empirical study of 58 returned Australian citizens and residents quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021, this paper aims to explore how people experienced paying for hotel quarantine, particularly with respect to fairness and relatedly, the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that the state has an obligation to assist individuals in discharging their duty to comply with public health measures and avoid disproportionate burdens accruing to populations or individuals. Though participants had varying opinions on whether they thought it fair to be charged for their quarantine, for many, the fee constituted a significant burden and source of stress. Given the undertaking of quarantine is primarily for the benefit of the public good, we argue the financial cost imposed on individuals does not meet the demands of reciprocity. It is imperative that future quarantine and isolation arrangements consider seriously the need to minimise burdens of individuals subject to such measures, and that fees do not become a new norm in public health and infectious disease control.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"17 1-2","pages":"67-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245694/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141617477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

How to Design Consent for Health Data Research? An Analysis of Arguments of Solidarity 如何为健康数据研究设计同意书？团结论点分析

IF 2.1 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-12-12 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad025

Svenja Wiertz

The article discusses the impact different concepts of solidarity can have on debates on models of consent for non-interventional research. It introduces three concepts of solidarity that have been referenced in bioethical debates: a purely descriptive concept, a concept that claims some derivative value for most but not all practices of solidarity, as well as a clearly normative concept where solidarity is tied to justice and taken to ground moral duties. It shows that regarding the rivalling models of study-specific consent, tiered consent and broad consent, the first two concepts can be taken to favour tiered consent while only normative solidarity supports a model of broad consent—or an argument to allow non-interventional research without requiring consent at all. As normative solidarity is tied to considerations of justice, however, the argument appears less straightforward than one might expect: It presupposes that the research contributes to overcoming existing social injustices.

文章讨论了不同的团结概念对非干预性研究同意模式辩论的影响。文章介绍了生物伦理辩论中提到的三种团结概念：一种纯粹描述性的概念，一种声称大多数团结实践（而非所有团结实践）具有某种衍生价值的概念，以及一种明确的规范性概念，在这种概念中，团结与正义联系在一起，并被视为道德义务的基础。它表明，在针对特定研究的同意、分层同意和广泛同意这几种相互对立的模式中，前两种概念都可以被视为有利于分层同意，而只有规范性团结支持广泛同意的模式--或者说支持允许进行非干预性研究而无需征得同意的论点。然而，由于规范团结与正义的考虑相联系，这一论点似乎没有人们想象的那么直截了当：它预先假定研究有助于克服现有的社会不公正现象。

引用次数: 0

Ageism Without Anticipation-Blindness 没有预期的老龄化--盲目性

IF 2.1 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-12-09 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad023

Martin Marchman Andersen, Lasse Nielsen

Ageism is the view that it is of greater moral value to allocate health care resources to younger people than to older people. In medical ethics, it is well-known that standard interpretations of distributive principles such as utilitarianism and egalitarianism imply some form of ageism. At times, ethicists argue as if practical complications are the only or main reason for not abiding to ageism. In this article, we argue that inferences to ageism from such distributive principles tend to commit what we call the anticipation-blindness fallacy: A much too narrow focus on life quality benefits of health care treatments inclines us to overlook the importance of life quality benefits of health care safety, that is the mere trust in and expectation of being treated and cared for as one grows old. This is a key omission because health safety has value for a much larger population and for much longer time. Taking health safety into account therefore has important implications as for how ageist we ought to be.

老龄歧视是一种观点，认为将医疗资源分配给年轻人比分配给老年人更具道德价值。在医学伦理学中，众所周知，对功利主义和平等主义等分配原则的标准解释意味着某种形式的年龄歧视。有时，伦理学家会争辩说，似乎实际问题是不遵守年龄歧视的唯一或主要原因。在本文中，我们认为，从这种分配原则推断出老龄歧视，往往会犯我们所说的 "预期盲目 "谬误：过于狭隘地关注医疗保健治疗对生命质量的益处，使我们倾向于忽视医疗保健安全对生命质量益处的重要性，即仅仅是对年老时得到治疗和护理的信任和期望。这是一个关键的疏忽，因为医疗安全对更多的人和更长的时间都有价值。因此，将医疗安全纳入考虑范围对于我们应该如何对待老龄问题具有重要意义。

引用次数: 0

Understanding Pandemic Solidarity: Mutual Support During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom 了解大流行病的团结：英国第一次 COVID-19 封锁期间的相互支持

IF 2.1 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-12-09 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad024

Stephanie Johnson, Stephen Roberts, Sarah Hayes, Amelia Fiske, Federica Lucivero, Stuart McLennan, Amicia Phillips, Gabrielle Samuel, Barbara Prainsack

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of solidarity has been invoked frequently. Much interest has centred around how citizens and communities support one another during times of uncertainty. Yet, empirical research which accounts and understands citizen’s views on pandemic solidarity, or their actual practices has remained limited. Drawing upon the analysis of data from 35 qualitative interviews, this article investigates how residents in England and Scotland enacted, understood, or criticised (the lack of) solidarity during the first national lockdown in the United Kingdom in April 2020—at a time when media celebrated solidarity as being at an all-time high. It finds that although solidarity was practiced by some people, the perceived lack of solidarity was just as pronounced. We conclude that despite frequent mobilisations of solidarity by policy makers and other public actors, actual practices of solidarity are poorly understood—despite the importance of solidarity for public health and policy.

在 COVID-19 大流行的整个过程中，团结的概念经常被引用。人们的兴趣主要集中在公民和社区如何在不确定时期相互支持。然而，能够说明和理解公民对大流行病团结的看法或他们的实际做法的实证研究仍然有限。本文通过对 35 个定性访谈的数据分析，调查了英格兰和苏格兰的居民在 2020 年 4 月英国首次全国封锁期间是如何实施、理解或批评（缺乏）团结的--当时媒体将团结推向了前所未有的高潮。研究发现，尽管一些人践行了团结精神，但人们对缺乏团结精神的看法也同样明显。我们的结论是，尽管政策制定者和其他公共参与者经常动员人们团结一致，但人们对团结一致的实际做法了解甚少，尽管团结一致对公共卫生和政策非常重要。

引用次数: 0

Confucian Welfarism: Intellectual Origins of Solidarity for Health and Welfare Systems 儒家福利主义:健康和福利制度团结的思想起源

3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad021

Ming-Jui Yeh

Abstract Solidarity is presumed to underpin the redistributive health and welfare systems in modern democracies; however, it is often considered a Western—or more specifically, European—concept. While health and welfare systems have been transplanted successfully to many non-Western developed countries, whether the solidarity necessary for such systems exists or is intellectually available remains under debate. Using an East Asian country with the Confucian tradition as an illustrative case, I first argue that the Confucian tradition has special theoretical and sociological importance for health and welfare solidarity. Then, through investigating the classic Confucian writings, I propose transformed interpretations of the essential concepts of Confucian thought, namely filial piety, benevolent governance and the mandate of heaven. With these interpretations, the differentiated family-based solidarity and the people-rooted thought in Confucianism could be reimagined to fit with the modern liberal-democratic political regime and welfare arrangements. I call this model Confucian welfarism, which I argue could form the intellectual origins of solidarity for people who believe in or have an affinity to Confucian ethos.

团结被认为是现代民主国家再分配健康和福利制度的基础;然而，它通常被认为是西方的概念，或者更具体地说，是欧洲的概念。虽然保健和福利制度已成功地移植到许多非西方发达国家，但这种制度所必需的团结是否存在或是否在智力上可用仍在辩论中。以一个具有儒家传统的东亚国家为例，我首先论证了儒家传统对健康和福利团结具有特殊的理论和社会学意义。然后，通过对经典儒家著作的考察，我对儒家思想的基本概念，即孝道、仁政和天命，提出了转变的解释。在此基础上，儒家思想中以家庭为基础的差异化团结和以人为本的思想可以被重新构想，以适应现代自由民主的政治制度和福利安排。我把这种模式称为儒家福利主义，我认为它可以为那些相信或认同儒家精神的人形成团结的思想根源。

{"title":"Confucian Welfarism: Intellectual Origins of Solidarity for Health and Welfare Systems","authors":"Ming-Jui Yeh","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad021","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Solidarity is presumed to underpin the redistributive health and welfare systems in modern democracies; however, it is often considered a Western—or more specifically, European—concept. While health and welfare systems have been transplanted successfully to many non-Western developed countries, whether the solidarity necessary for such systems exists or is intellectually available remains under debate. Using an East Asian country with the Confucian tradition as an illustrative case, I first argue that the Confucian tradition has special theoretical and sociological importance for health and welfare solidarity. Then, through investigating the classic Confucian writings, I propose transformed interpretations of the essential concepts of Confucian thought, namely filial piety, benevolent governance and the mandate of heaven. With these interpretations, the differentiated family-based solidarity and the people-rooted thought in Confucianism could be reimagined to fit with the modern liberal-democratic political regime and welfare arrangements. I call this model Confucian welfarism, which I argue could form the intellectual origins of solidarity for people who believe in or have an affinity to Confucian ethos.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"147 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135723560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Reducing the Risks of Nuclear War: The Role of Health Professionals 减少核战争的风险:卫生专业人员的作用

3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad020

Kamran Abbasi, Parveen Ali, Virginia Barbour, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, Peng Gong, Andy Haines, Ira Helfand, Richard Horton, Bob Mash, Arun Mitra, Carlos Monteiro, Elena N Naumova, Eric J Rubin, Tilman Ruff, Peush Sahni, James Tumwine, Paul Yonga, Chris Zielinski

引用次数: 0

Health as Complete Well-Being: The WHO Definition and Beyond 健康是完全的福祉:世卫组织的定义及其以后

3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-07-27 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad017

Thomas Schramme

Abstract The paper defends the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition of health against widespread criticism. The common objections are due to a possible misinterpretation of the word complete in the descriptor of health as ‘complete physical, mental and social well-being’. Complete here does not necessarily refer to perfect well-being but can alternatively mean exhaustive well-being, that is, containing all its constitutive features. In line with the alternative reading, I argue that the WHO definition puts forward a holistic account, not a notion of perfect health. I use historical and analytical evidence to defend this interpretation. In the second part of the paper, I further investigate the two different notions of health (holistic health and perfect health). I argue that both ideas are relevant but that the holistic interpretation is more adept for political aims.

本文为世界卫生组织(WHO)对健康的定义辩护，反对广泛的批评。常见的反对理由是，在描述健康时，“完整”一词可能被误解为“身体、精神和社会上的完全健康”。这里的“完整”不一定指完美的幸福，但也可以指彻底的幸福，即包含其所有构成特征。与另一种解读一致，我认为世界卫生组织的定义提出了一个整体的解释，而不是一个完美健康的概念。我用历史和分析证据来捍卫这一解释。在论文的第二部分，我进一步研究了两种不同的健康概念(整体健康和完美健康)。我认为这两种观点都是相关的，但整体的解释更适合于政治目的。

引用次数: 0

Can Geographically Targeted Vaccinations Be Ethically Justified? The Case of Norway During the COVID-19 Pandemic. 有地域针对性的疫苗接种在伦理上合理吗？挪威在 COVID-19 大流行期间的案例。

IF 1.4 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-07-26 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad011

Håkon Amdam, Ole Frithjof Norheim, Carl Tollef Solberg, Jasper R Littmann

This article discusses the fairness of geographically targeted vaccinations (GTVs). During the initial period of local and global vaccine scarcity, health authorities had to enact priority-setting strategies for mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19. These strategies have in common that priority setting was based on personal characteristics, such as age, health status or profession. However, in 2021, an alternative to this strategy was employed in some countries, particularly Norway. In these countries, vaccine allocation was also based on the epidemiological situations in different regions, and vaccines were assigned based on local incidence rates. The aim of this article is to describe and examine how a geographical allocation mechanism may work by considering Norway as a case study and discuss what ethical issues may arise in this type of priority setting. We explain three core concepts: priority setting, geographical priority setting and GTVs. With a particular focus on Norway, we discuss the potential effects of GTV, the public perception of such a strategy, and if GTV can be considered a fair strategy. We conclude that the most reasonable defence of GTV seems to be through a consequentialist account that values both total health outcomes and more equal outcomes.

本文讨论了有地域针对性的疫苗接种 (GTV) 的公平性。在地方和全球疫苗稀缺的初期，卫生当局不得不制定针对 COVID-19 的大规模疫苗接种活动的优先级设定策略。这些策略的共同点是根据年龄、健康状况或职业等个人特征确定优先次序。然而，在 2021 年，一些国家，特别是挪威，采用了这一战略的替代方案。在这些国家，疫苗的分配也是基于不同地区的流行病学情况，根据当地的发病率来分配疫苗。本文旨在以挪威为例，描述和研究地域分配机制如何发挥作用，并讨论在这种优先级设定中可能出现的伦理问题。我们解释了三个核心概念：确定优先权、确定地域优先权和地域分配机制。我们以挪威为重点，讨论了地域分配优先权的潜在影响、公众对这种策略的看法以及地域分配优先权是否可被视为一种公平的策略。我们的结论是，为 GTV 进行最合理的辩护似乎是通过一种结果论的解释，即既重视总体健康结果，也重视更平等的结果。

{"title":"Can Geographically Targeted Vaccinations Be Ethically Justified? The Case of Norway During the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Håkon Amdam, Ole Frithjof Norheim, Carl Tollef Solberg, Jasper R Littmann","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad011","DOIUrl":"10.1093/phe/phad011","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the fairness of geographically targeted vaccinations (GTVs). During the initial period of local and global vaccine scarcity, health authorities had to enact priority-setting strategies for mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19. These strategies have in common that priority setting was based on personal characteristics, such as age, health status or profession. However, in 2021, an alternative to this strategy was employed in some countries, particularly Norway. In these countries, vaccine allocation was also based on the epidemiological situations in different regions, and vaccines were assigned based on local incidence rates. The aim of this article is to describe and examine how a geographical allocation mechanism may work by considering Norway as a case study and discuss what ethical issues may arise in this type of priority setting. We explain three core concepts: priority setting, geographical priority setting and GTVs. With a particular focus on Norway, we discuss the potential effects of GTV, the public perception of such a strategy, and if GTV can be considered a fair strategy. We conclude that the most reasonable defence of GTV seems to be through a consequentialist account that values both total health outcomes and more equal outcomes.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"16 2","pages":"139-151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cb/1a/phad011.PMC10401490.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10007387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Drug Legalization, Democracy and Public Health: Canadian Stakeholders’ Opinions and Values with Respect to the Legalization of Cannabis 毒品合法化、民主和公共卫生:加拿大利益攸关方对大麻合法化的意见和价值观

IF 2.1 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-07-21 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad016

Marianne Rochette, Matt J. Valiquette, C. Barned, E. Racine

The legalization of cannabis in Canada instantiates principles of harm-reduction and safe supply. However, in-depth understanding of values at stake and attitudes toward legalization were not part of extensive democratic deliberation. Through a qualitative exploratory study, we undertook 48 semi-structured interviews with three Canadian stakeholder groups to explore opinions and values with respect to the legalization of cannabis: (1) members of the general public, (2) people with lived experience of addiction and (3) clinicians with experience treating patients with addiction. Across all groups, participants tended to be in favor of legalization, but particular opinions rested on their viewpoint as stakeholders. Clinicians considered the way legalization would affect an individual’s health and its potential for increasing rates of addiction on a larger scale. People with lived experience of addiction cited personal autonomy more than other groups and stressed the need to have access to quality information to make truly informed decisions. Alternatively, members of the public considered legalization positive or negative in light of whether one’s addiction affected others. We elaborate on and discuss how scientific evidence about drug use impact values relates and how can different arguments play in democratic debates about legalization.

加拿大大麻合法化体现了减少危害和安全供应的原则。然而，深入了解利害攸关的价值观和对合法化的态度并不是广泛民主审议的一部分。通过定性探索性研究，我们对三个加拿大利益相关者群体进行了48次半结构化访谈，以探讨他们对大麻合法化的看法和价值观:(1)普通公众，(2)有成瘾生活经历的人，(3)有治疗成瘾患者经验的临床医生。在所有群体中，参与者倾向于支持合法化，但特定意见取决于他们作为利益相关者的观点。临床医生认为，大麻合法化会影响个人健康，并有可能在更大范围内增加成瘾率。有过成瘾经历的人比其他群体更多地提到了个人自主权，并强调需要获得高质量的信息来做出真正明智的决定。另一方面，公众认为合法化是积极的还是消极的，根据一个人的成瘾是否影响到其他人。我们详细阐述和讨论了关于吸毒影响价值的科学证据是如何关联的，以及不同的论点如何在关于合法化的民主辩论中发挥作用。

{"title":"Drug Legalization, Democracy and Public Health: Canadian Stakeholders’ Opinions and Values with Respect to the Legalization of Cannabis","authors":"Marianne Rochette, Matt J. Valiquette, C. Barned, E. Racine","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The legalization of cannabis in Canada instantiates principles of harm-reduction and safe supply. However, in-depth understanding of values at stake and attitudes toward legalization were not part of extensive democratic deliberation. Through a qualitative exploratory study, we undertook 48 semi-structured interviews with three Canadian stakeholder groups to explore opinions and values with respect to the legalization of cannabis: (1) members of the general public, (2) people with lived experience of addiction and (3) clinicians with experience treating patients with addiction. Across all groups, participants tended to be in favor of legalization, but particular opinions rested on their viewpoint as stakeholders. Clinicians considered the way legalization would affect an individual’s health and its potential for increasing rates of addiction on a larger scale. People with lived experience of addiction cited personal autonomy more than other groups and stressed the need to have access to quality information to make truly informed decisions. Alternatively, members of the public considered legalization positive or negative in light of whether one’s addiction affected others. We elaborate on and discuss how scientific evidence about drug use impact values relates and how can different arguments play in democratic debates about legalization.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47454811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Public Health Ethics

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀