“针对生活方式”的疾病:治疗的理由是什么?

IF 0.9 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.59-84
P. Batifoulier, L. Braddock, Victor Duchesne, Ariane Ghirardello, J. Latsis
{"title":"“针对生活方式”的疾病:治疗的理由是什么?","authors":"P. Batifoulier, L. Braddock, Victor Duchesne, Ariane Ghirardello, J. Latsis","doi":"10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.59-84","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patients suffering from “lifestyle” conditions are most often viewed as responsible for their illness, and so not considered to be a priority for healthcare resources. Instead, their treatment is financed on instrumental grounds: it is better to treat the condition now than to incur higher costs later of not doing so. An alternative register of justification at work in public healthcare policies is not motivated by instrumental considerations. Instead, it seeks to articulate an ethical case for prioritizing lifestyle conditions. Within this framework, we draw on the notion of vital need within the tradition of humanistic philosophy to argue that solidarity justifies the treatment of such conditions, exemplified here by obesity. We use the theoretical framework of economics of convention to present these two registers of justification at work in public healthcare policies. The importance of humanistic criticism prevents instrumental logic from being completely dominant.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Targeting Lifestyle\\\" Conditions: What Justifications for Treatment?\",\"authors\":\"P. Batifoulier, L. Braddock, Victor Duchesne, Ariane Ghirardello, J. Latsis\",\"doi\":\"10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.59-84\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Patients suffering from “lifestyle” conditions are most often viewed as responsible for their illness, and so not considered to be a priority for healthcare resources. Instead, their treatment is financed on instrumental grounds: it is better to treat the condition now than to incur higher costs later of not doing so. An alternative register of justification at work in public healthcare policies is not motivated by instrumental considerations. Instead, it seeks to articulate an ethical case for prioritizing lifestyle conditions. Within this framework, we draw on the notion of vital need within the tradition of humanistic philosophy to argue that solidarity justifies the treatment of such conditions, exemplified here by obesity. We use the theoretical framework of economics of convention to present these two registers of justification at work in public healthcare policies. The importance of humanistic criticism prevents instrumental logic from being completely dominant.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.59-84\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.59-84","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

患有“生活方式”问题的患者通常被视为对自己的疾病负责,因此不被视为医疗资源的优先事项。相反,他们的治疗资金是基于工具的理由:现在治疗这种情况,总比以后不治疗而招致更高的成本要好。在公共医疗保健政策中,另一种正当性记录并非出于工具考虑。相反,它试图阐明优先考虑生活方式条件的道德案例。在这个框架内,我们利用人文主义哲学传统中的重要需求概念来论证,团结一致证明了治疗这种疾病的合理性,这里以肥胖为例。我们使用惯例经济学的理论框架来提出这两个注册的理由在公共医疗保健政策的工作。人文主义批判的重要性阻止了工具逻辑完全占据主导地位。
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
“Targeting Lifestyle" Conditions: What Justifications for Treatment?
Patients suffering from “lifestyle” conditions are most often viewed as responsible for their illness, and so not considered to be a priority for healthcare resources. Instead, their treatment is financed on instrumental grounds: it is better to treat the condition now than to incur higher costs later of not doing so. An alternative register of justification at work in public healthcare policies is not motivated by instrumental considerations. Instead, it seeks to articulate an ethical case for prioritizing lifestyle conditions. Within this framework, we draw on the notion of vital need within the tradition of humanistic philosophy to argue that solidarity justifies the treatment of such conditions, exemplified here by obesity. We use the theoretical framework of economics of convention to present these two registers of justification at work in public healthcare policies. The importance of humanistic criticism prevents instrumental logic from being completely dominant.
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
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erosion of Solidarity in France and Welfare Conventions: The New Role of Complementary Health Insurance. Economics of Convention Meets Canguilhem “Targeting Lifestyle" Conditions: What Justifications for Treatment? Medicine and economic knowledge : the relevance of career in the study of transformations in the healthcare system Perspectives on the economics and sociology of health. Contributions from the institutionalist approach of economics of convention – an introduction
×
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