The exclusion of the other: challenges to the ethics of closeness.
The exclusion of the other: challenges to the ethics of closeness.
复制标题
排斥他人：对亲密伦理的挑战。
DOI：
10.1046/j.1466-769x.2003.00110.x
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Trine Myhrvold
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Trine Myhrvold
有一个正在进行的讨论有关个人与客观的考虑，在专业护理。在这篇文章中，三个不同的立场内的伦理学的亲密关系将进行讨论。这些是：（a）将亲密的伦理学保留给亲近的、有经验的他人，“包括有经验的第三人”，这是诺特维特的立场;（B）试图使遥远的、没有经验的他人更亲近，“包括第三人”;（c）最后，审查亲密的观点是否会导致排除各种需要帮助的群体，“包括以第三人为代价的他者”。这些立场进行了讨论，以澄清的一些挑战，亲密关系的伦理面临的，当它认为，更大的道德义务是与个人比与非个人的关系，而不讨论的条件上的义务是基于。护士或其他健康专业人员面临的关键问题是：如果我们的主要道德责任是对那些与我们亲近的人，有经验的人，谁来对那些在既定健康服务之外的人，没有经验的人负责？偏袒有经验的其他人是基于合法的需要，这一点是否显而易见？在与亲密关系和优先事项有关的问题上，是否可以避免讨论护理的合法基础？这一讨论触及了我们学科的核心。一种片面的亲密关系观点，拒绝对那些与我们没有关系的人承担道德责任，是一种可辩护的道德立场吗？
There is an ongoing discussion concerning personal vs. impersonal considerations in professional care. In this article, three different positions within the ethics of closeness will be discussed. These are: (a) reserving the ethics of closeness for close experienced others, 'including the experienced Other', which is Nortvedt's position; (b) trying to bring the distant, non-experienced others closer, 'including the Third'; and (c) finally, an examination of whether a perspective of closeness may lead to the exclusion of various groups in need of help, 'including the Other at the expense of the Third'. These positions are discussed with a view to clarifying some of the challenges that the ethics of closeness faces when it maintains that greater ethical obligation is associated with personal than with impersonal relations, without discussing the terms on which the obligation is based. Key questions that arise for a nurse or other health professional are: If our primary moral responsibility is for those that are close to us, the experienced others, who is to be responsible for those that are outside the established health services, the non-experienced others? Is it evident that favouring the experienced others is based on legitimate needs? Can a discussion on the legitimate basis of nursing be avoided in questions relating to closeness and priorities? This discussion touches the heart of our discipline. Is a one-sided perspective of closeness, rejecting moral responsibility for those with whom we have no relationship, a defensible ethical position?