拒绝与请求:捍卫一致性。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1017/S0963180124000148
Jeremy Davis, Eric Mathison
{"title":"拒绝与请求:捍卫一致性。","authors":"Jeremy Davis, Eric Mathison","doi":"10.1017/S0963180124000148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Physicians place significant weight on the distinction between acts and omissions. Most believe that autonomous refusals for procedures, such as blood transfusions and resuscitation, ought to be respected, but they feel no similar obligation to accede to requests for treatment that will, in the physician's opinion, harm the patient (e.g., assisted death). Thus, there is an asymmetry. In this paper, we challenge the strength of this distinction by arguing that the ordering of values should be the same in both cases. The reason for respecting refusals is that, in such cases, autonomy outweighs well-being. We argue that the same should be true in request cases, which means that requests should not be denied only due to the treatment being too harmful in the physician's opinion. Our strategy is to consider and reject a number of arguments for the asymmetrical view, including an appeal to the doing-allowing distinction and positive and negative rights. The duty to respect refusals is still greater than the duty to grant requests on our view, but, by arguing that the ordering of values is the same in both cases, we show that there is less of a distinction in healthcare between requests and refusals than many currently believe.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refusals and Requests: In Defense of Consistency.\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Davis, Eric Mathison\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180124000148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Physicians place significant weight on the distinction between acts and omissions. Most believe that autonomous refusals for procedures, such as blood transfusions and resuscitation, ought to be respected, but they feel no similar obligation to accede to requests for treatment that will, in the physician's opinion, harm the patient (e.g., assisted death). Thus, there is an asymmetry. In this paper, we challenge the strength of this distinction by arguing that the ordering of values should be the same in both cases. The reason for respecting refusals is that, in such cases, autonomy outweighs well-being. We argue that the same should be true in request cases, which means that requests should not be denied only due to the treatment being too harmful in the physician's opinion. Our strategy is to consider and reject a number of arguments for the asymmetrical view, including an appeal to the doing-allowing distinction and positive and negative rights. The duty to respect refusals is still greater than the duty to grant requests on our view, but, by arguing that the ordering of values is the same in both cases, we show that there is less of a distinction in healthcare between requests and refusals than many currently believe.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180124000148\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180124000148","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医生非常重视作为与不作为之间的区别。大多数人认为,自主拒绝输血和抢救等程序应得到尊重,但他们认为没有类似的义务同意医生认为会伤害病人的治疗请求(如协助死亡)。因此,存在着一种不对称。在本文中,我们对这种区别的力度提出质疑,认为在这两种情况下,价值排序应该是相同的。尊重拒绝的理由是,在这种情况下,自主权大于福祉。我们认为,在请求治疗的情况下也应如此,这意味着不应仅仅因为医生认为治疗过于有害而拒绝治疗请求。我们的策略是考虑并拒绝一些支持不对称观点的论据,包括对 "做 "与 "允许 "的区别以及积极和消极权利的诉求。根据我们的观点,尊重拒绝治疗的责任仍然大于同意治疗的责任,但是,通过论证两种情况下的价值排序是相同的,我们表明,在医疗保健中,治疗请求与治疗拒绝之间的区别比许多人目前认为的要小。
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
Refusals and Requests: In Defense of Consistency.

Physicians place significant weight on the distinction between acts and omissions. Most believe that autonomous refusals for procedures, such as blood transfusions and resuscitation, ought to be respected, but they feel no similar obligation to accede to requests for treatment that will, in the physician's opinion, harm the patient (e.g., assisted death). Thus, there is an asymmetry. In this paper, we challenge the strength of this distinction by arguing that the ordering of values should be the same in both cases. The reason for respecting refusals is that, in such cases, autonomy outweighs well-being. We argue that the same should be true in request cases, which means that requests should not be denied only due to the treatment being too harmful in the physician's opinion. Our strategy is to consider and reject a number of arguments for the asymmetrical view, including an appeal to the doing-allowing distinction and positive and negative rights. The duty to respect refusals is still greater than the duty to grant requests on our view, but, by arguing that the ordering of values is the same in both cases, we show that there is less of a distinction in healthcare between requests and refusals than many currently believe.

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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Ethics and the Observant Jewish and Muslim Patient: Shared Theocentric Perspectives in Practice. The Roles of Understanding and Belief in Prognostic Awareness. "Intellectual Lightening": A Tribute to John Harris through a Collection of Memories, Imaginary Books, Fictional Reviews, and an Interview. Decreasing Perceived Moral Distress in Pediatrics Residents: A Pilot Study. An Educational Framework for Healthcare Ethics Consultation to Approach Structural Stigma in Mental Health and Substance Use Health.
×
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