治疗手推车和战争的无辜受害者。

IF 2.1 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-02-22 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13273
Michael L. Gross
{"title":"治疗手推车和战争的无辜受害者。","authors":"Michael L. Gross","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Both trolleys and war leave innocent victims to suffer death and injury. Trolley problems accounting for the injured, and not only the dead, tease out intuitions about liability that enhance our understanding of the obligation to provide compensation and medical care to civilian victims of war. Like many trolley victims, civilians in war may suffer justifiable, excusable, or negligent harms that demand compensation. Chief among these is collateral harm befalling civilians. Collateral harm is endemic to war and comprises permissible but unavoidable death or injury following necessary and proportionate military operations. Although state armies sometimes offer condolence payments for civilian death, injury, and property loss, they deny liability. Instead, they use compensation to enhance counterinsurgency efforts and assuage feelings of agent regret. As part of the medical rules of eligibility, Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan also provided medical care to victims of collateral harm. However, they denied care to similarly sick or injured civilians. While compensation is often justified to cure the harm civilians suffer, the differential use of medical resources is not. Rather, medical care remains subject to the principle of beneficence and medical need. The duty to provide civilian healthcare in war, particularly in wars of humanitarian intervention, is far-reaching and imposes significant costs that military and medical ethics are yet to recognize.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 1","pages":"18-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13273","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treating the innocent victims of trolleys and war\",\"authors\":\"Michael L. Gross\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.13273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Both trolleys and war leave innocent victims to suffer death and injury. Trolley problems accounting for the injured, and not only the dead, tease out intuitions about liability that enhance our understanding of the obligation to provide compensation and medical care to civilian victims of war. Like many trolley victims, civilians in war may suffer justifiable, excusable, or negligent harms that demand compensation. Chief among these is collateral harm befalling civilians. Collateral harm is endemic to war and comprises permissible but unavoidable death or injury following necessary and proportionate military operations. Although state armies sometimes offer condolence payments for civilian death, injury, and property loss, they deny liability. Instead, they use compensation to enhance counterinsurgency efforts and assuage feelings of agent regret. As part of the medical rules of eligibility, Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan also provided medical care to victims of collateral harm. However, they denied care to similarly sick or injured civilians. While compensation is often justified to cure the harm civilians suffer, the differential use of medical resources is not. Rather, medical care remains subject to the principle of beneficence and medical need. The duty to provide civilian healthcare in war, particularly in wars of humanitarian intervention, is far-reaching and imposes significant costs that military and medical ethics are yet to recognize.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"18-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13273\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13273\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13273","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

摘要

电车和战争都会使无辜的受害者遭受伤亡。无轨电车问题涉及的是受伤者,而不仅仅是死亡者,它引出了关于责任的直觉,加深了我们对向战争中的平民受害者提供赔偿和医疗的义务的理解。与许多电车受害者一样,战争中的平民也可能遭受需要赔偿的正当、可原谅或疏忽的伤害。其中最主要的是平民遭受的附带伤害。附带损害是战争的特有现象,包括在必要和相称的军事行动之后发生的可允许但不可避免的死亡或伤害。尽管国家军队有时会对平民伤亡和财产损失进行慰问,但他们否认责任。相反,他们利用赔偿来加强反叛乱工作,缓解代理人的悔恨情绪。作为医疗资格规则的一部分,驻伊拉克和阿富汗的联军也为附带伤害的受害者提供医疗服务。但是,他们拒绝为同样生病或受伤的平民提供医疗服务。虽然补偿往往是为了治疗平民所遭受的伤害,但医疗资源的差别使用却不是合理的。相反,医疗服务仍应遵循恩惠原则和医疗需要。在战争中,特别是在人道主义干预的战争中,为平民提供医疗保健的义务影响深远,并带来了军事和医学伦理尚未认识到的巨大代价。
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
Treating the innocent victims of trolleys and war

Both trolleys and war leave innocent victims to suffer death and injury. Trolley problems accounting for the injured, and not only the dead, tease out intuitions about liability that enhance our understanding of the obligation to provide compensation and medical care to civilian victims of war. Like many trolley victims, civilians in war may suffer justifiable, excusable, or negligent harms that demand compensation. Chief among these is collateral harm befalling civilians. Collateral harm is endemic to war and comprises permissible but unavoidable death or injury following necessary and proportionate military operations. Although state armies sometimes offer condolence payments for civilian death, injury, and property loss, they deny liability. Instead, they use compensation to enhance counterinsurgency efforts and assuage feelings of agent regret. As part of the medical rules of eligibility, Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan also provided medical care to victims of collateral harm. However, they denied care to similarly sick or injured civilians. While compensation is often justified to cure the harm civilians suffer, the differential use of medical resources is not. Rather, medical care remains subject to the principle of beneficence and medical need. The duty to provide civilian healthcare in war, particularly in wars of humanitarian intervention, is far-reaching and imposes significant costs that military and medical ethics are yet to recognize.

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
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