互惠与资源

IF 1.2 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Practical Ethics Pub Date : 2021-12-14 DOI:10.3998/jpe.1519
E. Fenton
{"title":"互惠与资源","authors":"E. Fenton","doi":"10.3998/jpe.1519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reciprocity has been deployed as the moral concept underpinning an obligation to ensure that health care workers (HCW) who work during a pandemic have access to essential goods, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), and as a principle for giving priority to HCW for scarce resources, such as intensive care beds or ventilators. In this paper I examine the concept of reciprocity, arguing that it is best understood as a form of fairness, or “fair return for services rendered.” This interpretation works well in explaining our obligation to provide HCW with PPE and other risk-mitigation resources, but I give reasons to suggest that it does not support an obligation to prioritize HCW for scarce medical interventions.","PeriodicalId":42335,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Practical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reciprocity and Resources\",\"authors\":\"E. Fenton\",\"doi\":\"10.3998/jpe.1519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reciprocity has been deployed as the moral concept underpinning an obligation to ensure that health care workers (HCW) who work during a pandemic have access to essential goods, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), and as a principle for giving priority to HCW for scarce resources, such as intensive care beds or ventilators. In this paper I examine the concept of reciprocity, arguing that it is best understood as a form of fairness, or “fair return for services rendered.” This interpretation works well in explaining our obligation to provide HCW with PPE and other risk-mitigation resources, but I give reasons to suggest that it does not support an obligation to prioritize HCW for scarce medical interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Practical Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Practical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3998/jpe.1519\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Practical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/jpe.1519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

互惠已被视为一种道德概念,它支撑着确保在疫情期间工作的医护人员能够获得个人防护设备等必需品的义务,并被视为优先考虑重症监护病床或呼吸机等稀缺资源的原则。在这篇论文中,我研究了互惠的概念,认为它最好被理解为一种公平的形式,或“所提供服务的公平回报”。这种解释很好地解释了我们向HCW提供个人防护装备和其他风险缓解资源的义务,但我有理由认为,它不支持将HCW优先用于稀缺医疗干预的义务。
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
Reciprocity and Resources
Reciprocity has been deployed as the moral concept underpinning an obligation to ensure that health care workers (HCW) who work during a pandemic have access to essential goods, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), and as a principle for giving priority to HCW for scarce resources, such as intensive care beds or ventilators. In this paper I examine the concept of reciprocity, arguing that it is best understood as a form of fairness, or “fair return for services rendered.” This interpretation works well in explaining our obligation to provide HCW with PPE and other risk-mitigation resources, but I give reasons to suggest that it does not support an obligation to prioritize HCW for scarce medical interventions.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊最新文献
Defective Normative Powers: The Case of Consent Illusions of Control Can We Talk?: Communicating Moral Concern in an Era of Polarized Politics Prioritizing Parents How AI Can Aid Bioethics
×
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