{"title":"胁迫的原因:令人担忧的原因?","authors":"Maxwell J Smith","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00187-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In his 2000 book, From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis, Richard Coker makes a number of important observations and arguments regarding the use of coercive public health measures in response to infectious disease threats. In particular, Coker argues that we have a tendency to neglect public health threats and then demand immediate action, which can leave policymakers with fewer effective options and may require (or may be perceived as requiring) more aggressive, coercive measures to achieve public health goals. While Coker makes a convincing case as to why we should find it ethically problematic when governments find themselves in this position and resort to coercion, left outstanding is the question of whether this should preclude governments and health authorities from using coercion if and when they do find themselves in this position. In this paper, I argue that, while we should consider it ethically objectionable when governments resort to coercion because they have neglected a public health threat, its causes, and other possible responses to that threat, this should not then necessarily rule out the use of coercion in such circumstances; that there are ethically objectionable antecedents for why coercion is being considered should not necessarily or automatically cause us to think coercion in such cases cannot be justified. I address an objection to this argument and draw several conclusions about how governments' use of coercion in public health should be evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cause for coercion: cause for concern?\",\"authors\":\"Maxwell J Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40592-024-00187-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In his 2000 book, From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis, Richard Coker makes a number of important observations and arguments regarding the use of coercive public health measures in response to infectious disease threats. In particular, Coker argues that we have a tendency to neglect public health threats and then demand immediate action, which can leave policymakers with fewer effective options and may require (or may be perceived as requiring) more aggressive, coercive measures to achieve public health goals. While Coker makes a convincing case as to why we should find it ethically problematic when governments find themselves in this position and resort to coercion, left outstanding is the question of whether this should preclude governments and health authorities from using coercion if and when they do find themselves in this position. In this paper, I argue that, while we should consider it ethically objectionable when governments resort to coercion because they have neglected a public health threat, its causes, and other possible responses to that threat, this should not then necessarily rule out the use of coercion in such circumstances; that there are ethically objectionable antecedents for why coercion is being considered should not necessarily or automatically cause us to think coercion in such cases cannot be justified. I address an objection to this argument and draw several conclusions about how governments' use of coercion in public health should be evaluated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00187-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00187-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理查德-科克尔(Richard Coker)在 2000 年出版的《从混乱到强制》(From Chaos to Coercion:理查德-科克尔(Richard Coker)在其 2000 年出版的《从混乱到强制:拘留与结核病控制》一书中,就使用强制公共卫生措施应对传染病威胁提出了许多重要的看法和论点。特别是,科克尔认为,我们往往忽视公共卫生威胁,然后要求立即采取行动,这可能使政策制定者的有效选择更少,可能需要(或被认为需要)采取更激进的强制措施来实现公共卫生目标。科克尔提出了一个令人信服的理由,说明为什么当政府发现自己处于这种境地并诉诸强制手段时,我们应该认为这在伦理上是有问题的,但悬而未决的问题是,如果政府和卫生当局发现自己处于这种境地时,是否应该排除使用强制手段的可能性。在本文中,我将论证,当政府因为忽视公共卫生威胁、其原因以及其他可能的应对措施而诉诸强制手段时,我们应该认为这在伦理上是令人反感的,但这并不一定就排除了在这种情况下使用强制手段的可能性;为什么要考虑使用强制手段,这在伦理上是令人反感的,但这并不一定或自动导致我们认为在这种情况下使用强制手段是不合理的。我对这一论点提出了反对意见,并就如何评价政府在公共卫生领域使用强制手段得出了几点结论。
In his 2000 book, From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis, Richard Coker makes a number of important observations and arguments regarding the use of coercive public health measures in response to infectious disease threats. In particular, Coker argues that we have a tendency to neglect public health threats and then demand immediate action, which can leave policymakers with fewer effective options and may require (or may be perceived as requiring) more aggressive, coercive measures to achieve public health goals. While Coker makes a convincing case as to why we should find it ethically problematic when governments find themselves in this position and resort to coercion, left outstanding is the question of whether this should preclude governments and health authorities from using coercion if and when they do find themselves in this position. In this paper, I argue that, while we should consider it ethically objectionable when governments resort to coercion because they have neglected a public health threat, its causes, and other possible responses to that threat, this should not then necessarily rule out the use of coercion in such circumstances; that there are ethically objectionable antecedents for why coercion is being considered should not necessarily or automatically cause us to think coercion in such cases cannot be justified. I address an objection to this argument and draw several conclusions about how governments' use of coercion in public health should be evaluated.
期刊介绍:
Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world.
An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance.
Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications.
One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre.
Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length.
Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary