Necessity and least infringement conditions in public health ethics
Necessity and least infringement conditions in public health ethics
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11019-017-9775-0
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Selgelid, Michael J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Allen, Timothy;Selgelid, Michael J.
奇尔德里斯等人提出的颇具影响力的公共卫生伦理框架包括五个“正当性条件”，其中两个是“必要性”和“最小侵害”。“虽然框架指出了重要的道德价值观，但我们认为，它列出必要性和最小侵权是多余的，因为它们在逻辑上是等同的。然而，奇尔德里斯等人是否会赞同这一观点，或者认为这两种情况是不同的，这是模棱两可的。这种模糊性导致了公共卫生伦理讨论中的混乱，引用了奇尔德里斯等人的框架，正如Resnik与Wilson和Dawson之间的辩论所证明的那样。我们分析这场辩论，以解决这些模糊之处。最后，我们认为，奇尔德里斯等人的框架的必要性/最小侵害原则只适用于只有一个干预是为了实现一个特定目标的情况下。在其他情况下，并不一定要求只实施最少侵权的干预。
The influential public health ethics framework proposed by Childress et al. includes five "justificatory conditions," two of which are "necessity" and "least infringement." While the framework points to important moral values, we argue it is redundant for it to list both necessity and least infringement because they are logically equivalent. However, it is ambiguous whether Childress et al. would endorse this view, or hold the two conditions distinct. This ambiguity has resulted in confusion in public health ethics discussions citing the Childress et al. framework, as demonstrated by debate between Resnik and Wilson and Dawson. We analyse this debate to resolve these ambiguities. Finally, we argue that the necessity/least infringement principle of the Childress et al. framework applies only in cases in which only one intervention is to be implemented to achieve one specific goal. In other cases, it is not essential to require that only the least infringing intervention be implemented.