Moros D A, Rhodes R, Baumrin B, Strain J J
Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York 10029-6574.
J Med Philos. 1991 Apr;16(2):161-81. doi: 10.1093/jmp/16.2.161.
The following article is a response to the position paper of the Hastings Center, "Ethical Challenges of Chronic Illness", a product of their three year project on Ethics and Chronic Care. The authors of this paper, three prominent bioethicists, Daniel Callahan, Arthur Caplan, and Bruce Jennings, argue that there should be a different ethic for acute and chronic care. In pressing this distinction they provide philosophical grounds for limiting medical care for the elderly and chronically ill. We give a critical survey of their position and reject it as well as any attempt to characterize the physician-patient relationship as a commercial contract. We emphasize, as central features of good medical practice, a commitment to be the patient's agent and a determination to acquire and be guided by knowledge. These commitments may sometimes conflict with efforts to have the physician serve as an instrument of social and economic policies limiting medical care.
以下文章是对黑斯廷斯中心立场文件《慢性病的伦理挑战》的回应,该文件是他们为期三年的伦理与慢性病护理项目的成果。本文作者是三位杰出的生物伦理学家,丹尼尔·卡拉汉、亚瑟·卡普兰和布鲁斯·詹宁斯,他们认为急性护理和慢性病护理应有不同的伦理标准。在强调这种区别时,他们为限制老年人和慢性病患者的医疗护理提供了哲学依据。我们对他们的立场进行了批判性审视,并予以拒绝,同时也拒绝任何将医患关系描述为商业合同的企图。我们强调,作为良好医疗实践的核心特征,要致力于成为患者的代理人,并决心获取知识并以知识为指导。这些承诺有时可能与让医生成为限制医疗护理的社会和经济政策工具的努力相冲突。