共谋减少危害。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-13 DOI:10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9
Timothy Kirschenheiter, John Corvino
{"title":"共谋减少危害。","authors":"Timothy Kirschenheiter,&nbsp;John Corvino","doi":"10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label \"harm reduction.\" If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What's the problem? The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there's more to \"harm reduction,\" as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous \"more.\" Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites (SISs)-safe spaces for the use of risky drugs-as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"28 4","pages":"352-361"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complicity in Harm Reduction.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Kirschenheiter,&nbsp;John Corvino\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label \\\"harm reduction.\\\" If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What's the problem? The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there's more to \\\"harm reduction,\\\" as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous \\\"more.\\\" Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites (SISs)-safe spaces for the use of risky drugs-as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"352-361\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/10/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

乍一看,似乎很难反对任何值得贴上“减少危害”标签的项目。如果伤害是不好的,就像每个人都认识到的那样,那么减少伤害肯定是好的。有什么问题吗?我们认为,这个问题是双重的。首先,“减少伤害”,这个术语的典型用法,不仅仅是减少伤害。一些对减少伤害项目的警惕可能来自于模糊的“更多”。因此,我们的部分任务是提供减少危害的明确定义。接下来,我们转向第二个问题:对共谋的担忧。那些反对减少伤害项目的人担心参与这些项目会使他们成为他们认为不道德的活动的同谋。在本文中,我们认为这种担心在很大程度上是没有根据的。我们使用监督注射场所(SISs)——使用危险药物的安全空间——作为我们减少危害的范例。提供这些特殊药物通常是希望减少对吸毒者和公众的伤害。出于这个原因,我们的分析集中在共谋伤害上。我们借鉴了Gregory Mellema的工作作为我们的框架。Mellema提供了三种同谋他人造成伤害的方式:支持、促进或纵容。我们认为,一个操作SIS的人在这些方面都不是同谋,同时也列出了必须满足的条件,如果一个人认为减少伤害需要在非后果主义的不法行为中同谋。
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
Complicity in Harm Reduction.

At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label "harm reduction." If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What's the problem? The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there's more to "harm reduction," as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous "more." Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites (SISs)-safe spaces for the use of risky drugs-as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.

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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
期刊最新文献
Sustainability as an Intrinsic Moral Concern for Solidaristic Health Care. Recontextualization and Imagination: The Public Health Professional and the U.S. Health Care System. Childbirth as Fault Lines: Justifications in Physician-Patient Interactions About Postnatal Rehabilitation. Ethical, Psychological and Social Un/certainties in the Face of Deemed Consent for Organ Donation in England. "I Do Not Believe We Should Disclose Everything to an Older Patient": Challenges and Ethical Concerns in Clinical Decision-Making in Old-Age Care in Ethiopia.
×
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