封锁、生物伦理与公众:自由民主中的政策制定》。

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.1002/hast.1539
S. Andrew Schroeder
{"title":"封锁、生物伦理与公众:自由民主中的政策制定》。","authors":"S. Andrew Schroeder","doi":"10.1002/hast.1539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>Commentaries on the ethics of Covid lockdowns nearly all focus on offering substantive guidance to policy-makers. Lockdowns, however, raise many ethical questions that admit of a range of reasonable answers. In such cases, policy-making in a liberal democracy ought to be sensitive to which reasonable views the public actually holds—a topic existing bioethical work on lockdowns has not explored in detail. In this essay, I identify several important questions connected to the kind of influence the public ought to have on lockdown decision-making, including how policy-makers ought to handle misinformed or morally suspect viewpoints, and how policy-makers ought to respond to minority viewpoints. I argue that questions like this, concerning the appropriate influence of the public on decision-making, will be central to the field of bioethics as it increasingly focuses on policy and population-level issues and therefore ought to be priorities for future work</i>.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"53 6","pages":"11-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.1539","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lockdowns, Bioethics, and the Public: Policy-Making in a Liberal Democracy\",\"authors\":\"S. Andrew Schroeder\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.1539\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p><i>Commentaries on the ethics of Covid lockdowns nearly all focus on offering substantive guidance to policy-makers. Lockdowns, however, raise many ethical questions that admit of a range of reasonable answers. In such cases, policy-making in a liberal democracy ought to be sensitive to which reasonable views the public actually holds—a topic existing bioethical work on lockdowns has not explored in detail. In this essay, I identify several important questions connected to the kind of influence the public ought to have on lockdown decision-making, including how policy-makers ought to handle misinformed or morally suspect viewpoints, and how policy-makers ought to respond to minority viewpoints. I argue that questions like this, concerning the appropriate influence of the public on decision-making, will be central to the field of bioethics as it increasingly focuses on policy and population-level issues and therefore ought to be priorities for future work</i>.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":\"53 6\",\"pages\":\"11-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.1539\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1539\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1539","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有关 Covid 封锁伦理的评论几乎都侧重于为政策制定者提供实质性指导。然而,禁闭提出了许多伦理问题,这些问题可以有一系列合理的答案。在这种情况下,自由民主制度下的政策制定应该对公众实际持有的合理观点保持敏感--而现有的关于禁闭的生物伦理学研究还没有详细探讨过这个问题。在这篇文章中,我提出了几个与公众应该对封锁决策产生何种影响有关的重要问题,包括政策制定者应该如何处理信息错误或道德可疑的观点,以及政策制定者应该如何回应少数人的观点。我认为,随着生命伦理学领域越来越关注政策和人口层面的问题,像这样有关公众对决策的适当影响的问题将成为该领域的核心问题,因此应该成为未来工作的重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Lockdowns, Bioethics, and the Public: Policy-Making in a Liberal Democracy

Commentaries on the ethics of Covid lockdowns nearly all focus on offering substantive guidance to policy-makers. Lockdowns, however, raise many ethical questions that admit of a range of reasonable answers. In such cases, policy-making in a liberal democracy ought to be sensitive to which reasonable views the public actually holds—a topic existing bioethical work on lockdowns has not explored in detail. In this essay, I identify several important questions connected to the kind of influence the public ought to have on lockdown decision-making, including how policy-makers ought to handle misinformed or morally suspect viewpoints, and how policy-makers ought to respond to minority viewpoints. I argue that questions like this, concerning the appropriate influence of the public on decision-making, will be central to the field of bioethics as it increasingly focuses on policy and population-level issues and therefore ought to be priorities for future work.

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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Adam Omelianchuk, Alexander Morgan Capron, Lainie Friedman Ross, Arthur R. Derse, James L. Bernat, and David Magnus reply: Gender, Pediatric Care, and Evidence Johan C. Bester replies: Language Matters: The Semantics and Politics of “Assisted Dying” On Normothermic Regional Perfusion
×
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