Vaught Wayne
University of Missouri-Kansas City, 64110, USA.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24(4):301-28. doi: 10.1023/a:1026096920403.
The goal of this paper is two-fold. First, I begin by reviewing several of the major points of emphasis among health educators as they begin to incorporate multicultural issues into healthcare education. I then consider the role of moral relativism, which is currently being endorsed by some health educators, as the foundation for resolving cross-cultural conflicts in healthcare. I argue that moral relativism is ultimately inconsistent with the stated goals in multicultural curricular proposals and fails to provide an effective framework for considering moral conflicts in cross-cultural settings. Instead, I propose that those methods seeking to establish a common morality, built upon mutually shared values, offer the most promising means of resolving cross-cultural conflicts. This leads to my second goal, to compare recent work in moral pragmatism with what is now widely known in bioethics as moral "principlism." I argue that while proponents of principlism and pragmatism each seek to establish a common foundation for moral deliberation, they fail to appreciate significant similarities between their respective approaches. Instead of offering two completely unique and independent methods of moral deliberation, I suggest that principlism and pragmatism embrace common themes that point us in a positive direction, providing an effective framework useful for considering cross-cultural conflicts in healthcare.
本文的目标有两个。首先，我将回顾健康教育工作者在将多元文化问题纳入医疗保健教育时所强调的几个要点。然后，我将探讨道德相对主义的作用，目前一些健康教育工作者将其视为解决医疗保健中跨文化冲突的基础。我认为道德相对主义最终与多元文化课程提案中所述的目标不一致，并且未能为思考跨文化背景下的道德冲突提供有效的框架。相反，我建议那些基于共同价值观建立共同道德的方法，是解决跨文化冲突最有希望的手段。这引出了我的第二个目标，即比较道德实用主义的最新研究与生物伦理学中现在广为人知的道德“原则主义”。我认为，虽然原则主义和实用主义的支持者都试图为道德审议建立一个共同的基础，但他们没有认识到各自方法之间的显著相似之处。我建议，原则主义和实用主义并非提供两种完全独特和独立的道德审议方法，而是包含共同的主题，这些主题为我们指明了积极的方向，提供了一个有效的框架，有助于思考医疗保健中的跨文化冲突。
