为什么促进健康的建议会失败?

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-21 DOI:10.1007/s10728-023-00459-7
Thomas Schramme
{"title":"为什么促进健康的建议会失败?","authors":"Thomas Schramme","doi":"10.1007/s10728-023-00459-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nudges are means to influence the will formation of people to make specific choices more likely. My focus is on nudges that are supposed to improve the health condition of individuals and populations over and above the direct prevention of disease. I point out epistemic and moral problems with these types of nudges, which lead to my conclusion that health-enhancing nudges fail. They fail because we cannot know which choices enhance individual health-properly understood in a holistic way-and because health-enhancing nudges are often themselves bad for our health. They can be bad for our health because they assume inferior agency in their targets and accordingly regularly lead to appropriate resentment and anger-strong emotions which go along with an increased risk of health impairments. Briefly, health-enhancing nudges fail because they are based on persistent ignorance and on a presumptuous attitude.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":"33-46"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10902068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Health-enhancing Nudges Fail.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Schramme\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-023-00459-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Nudges are means to influence the will formation of people to make specific choices more likely. My focus is on nudges that are supposed to improve the health condition of individuals and populations over and above the direct prevention of disease. I point out epistemic and moral problems with these types of nudges, which lead to my conclusion that health-enhancing nudges fail. They fail because we cannot know which choices enhance individual health-properly understood in a holistic way-and because health-enhancing nudges are often themselves bad for our health. They can be bad for our health because they assume inferior agency in their targets and accordingly regularly lead to appropriate resentment and anger-strong emotions which go along with an increased risk of health impairments. Briefly, health-enhancing nudges fail because they are based on persistent ignorance and on a presumptuous attitude.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"33-46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10902068/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-023-00459-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/21 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/s10728-023-00459-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

暗示是影响人们意志形成的手段,使人们更有可能做出特定的选择。我的重点是那些除了直接预防疾病之外,还能改善个人和群体健康状况的干预措施。我指出了这些类型的 "暗示 "在认识论和道德上存在的问题,并由此得出结论:改善健康的 "暗示 "是失败的。它们之所以失败,是因为我们无法知道哪些选择可以增进个人健康--从整体上正确理解--还因为增进健康的干预措施本身往往不利于我们的健康。它们可能对我们的健康不利,因为它们假定目标的代理权较低,因此经常导致适当的怨恨和愤怒--强烈的情绪伴随着健康受损风险的增加。简而言之,促进健康的暗示之所以失败,是因为它们建立在持续的无知和自以为是的态度之上。
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
Why Health-enhancing Nudges Fail.

Nudges are means to influence the will formation of people to make specific choices more likely. My focus is on nudges that are supposed to improve the health condition of individuals and populations over and above the direct prevention of disease. I point out epistemic and moral problems with these types of nudges, which lead to my conclusion that health-enhancing nudges fail. They fail because we cannot know which choices enhance individual health-properly understood in a holistic way-and because health-enhancing nudges are often themselves bad for our health. They can be bad for our health because they assume inferior agency in their targets and accordingly regularly lead to appropriate resentment and anger-strong emotions which go along with an increased risk of health impairments. Briefly, health-enhancing nudges fail because they are based on persistent ignorance and on a presumptuous attitude.

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