McLachlan H V
Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland.
J Med Ethics. 1999 Dec;25(6):532-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.6.532.
This is a continuation of and a development of a debate between John Keown and me. The issue discussed is whether, in Britain, an unpaid system of blood donation promotes and is justified by its promotion of altruism. Doubt is cast on the notions that public policies can, and, if they can, that they should, be aimed at the promotion and expression of altruism rather than of self-interest, especially that of a mercenary sort. Reflections upon President Kennedy's proposition, introduced into the debate by Keown, that we should ask not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country is pivotal to this casting of doubt. A case is made for suggesting that advocacy along the lines which Keown presents of an exclusive reliance on a voluntary, unpaid system of blood donation encourages inappropriate attitudes towards the provision of health care. Perhaps, it is suggested, and the suggestion represents, on my part, a change of mind as a consequence of the debate, a dual system of blood provision might be preferable.
这是约翰·基奥恩和我之间一场辩论的延续与发展。所讨论的问题是,在英国,无偿献血制度是否促进了利他主义,以及这种促进作用是否使其具有正当性。有人对公共政策能够且如果能够的话就应该旨在促进和表达利他主义而非自身利益(尤其是那种唯利是图的自身利益)的观点提出了质疑。基奥恩在辩论中引入的肯尼迪总统的主张,即我们不应问国家能为我们做什么,而应问我们能为国家做什么,对这种质疑起到了关键作用。有人提出,按照基奥恩所主张的那样,倡导完全依赖自愿无偿献血制度会助长对医疗保健提供的不恰当态度。或许,有人建议,并且这一建议代表了我在辩论后想法的转变,采用双轨供血制度可能更为可取。