互惠和留下来的责任

IF 0.5 3区哲学 Q4 ETHICS Ethics & Global Politics Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260

Daniel Dzah

{"title":"互惠和留下来的责任","authors":"Daniel Dzah","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Some restrictionist arguments justifying the duty to stay as a means of addressing medical brain drain have relied on reciprocity as the moral basis for their policy proposals. In this essay, I argue that such reciprocity-based justifications for the duty to stay ignore crucial conditions of fittingness as relates to the funding of medical training.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reciprocity and the duty to stay\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Dzah\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Some restrictionist arguments justifying the duty to stay as a means of addressing medical brain drain have relied on reciprocity as the moral basis for their policy proposals. In this essay, I argue that such reciprocity-based justifications for the duty to stay ignore crucial conditions of fittingness as relates to the funding of medical training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Global Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2072260","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

一些限制主义者认为，保留义务是解决医疗人才流失的一种手段，他们将互惠作为其政策建议的道德基础。在这篇文章中，我认为，这种以互惠为基础的留下来义务的理由忽视了与医疗培训资金有关的关键条件。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Reciprocity and the duty to stay

ABSTRACT Some restrictionist arguments justifying the duty to stay as a means of addressing medical brain drain have relied on reciprocity as the moral basis for their policy proposals. In this essay, I argue that such reciprocity-based justifications for the duty to stay ignore crucial conditions of fittingness as relates to the funding of medical training.

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