Peterson M
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Jan;33(1):5-10. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.015495.
Two interpretations of the precautionary principle are considered. According to the normative (action-guiding) interpretation, the precautionary principle should be characterised in terms of what it urges doctors and other decision makers to do. According to the epistemic (belief-guiding) interpretation, the precautionary principle should be characterised in terms of what it urges us to believe. This paper recommends against the use of the precautionary principle as a decision rule in medical decision making, based on an impossibility theorem presented in Peterson (2005). However, the main point of the paper is an argument to the effect that decision theoretical problems associated with the precautionary principle can be overcome by paying greater attention to its epistemic dimension. Three epistemic principles inherent in a precautionary approach to medical risk analysis are characterised and defended.
本文考虑了对预防原则的两种解释。根据规范性(行动指导)解释,预防原则应以其敦促医生和其他决策者做什么来加以描述。根据认知性(信念指导)解释,预防原则应以其敦促我们相信什么来加以描述。基于彼得森(2005年)提出的一个不可能性定理,本文建议不要在医疗决策中使用预防原则作为决策规则。然而,本文的主要观点是一个论点,大意是与预防原则相关的决策理论问题可以通过更加关注其认知维度来克服。文中描述并捍卫了医疗风险分析的预防方法中固有的三项认知原则。