Suppr超能文献

[医疗保健中确定优先次序的伦理基础]

[Ethical basis of priority setting in healthcare].

作者信息

Marckmann G

机构信息

Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen.

出版信息

Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):867-73. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1116-x.

Abstract

The debate about priorities in healthcare has also started in Germany. Because of the special moral significance of health and healthcare, priority setting in healthcare also involves ethical issues. After clarifying the relationship between priority setting and rationing, I first discuss whether it is ethically acceptable or even mandated to set priorities in healthcare. If this first question is answered with "yes", the following question is how the priorities can be determined in an ethically defensible way. I will try to show that it is impossible to justify priorities in healthcare within a liberal theory of justice that is neutral towards substantive conceptions of the good life. We rather need a deliberative decision process about how we want to live in the face of illness, suffering, and death. Only by reference to a substantial concept of a good life is it possible to define and justify healthcare priorities. A national priority-setting commission could play an important role in stimulating this deliberation and developing general recommendations according to which criteria and procedures priorities should be set in the German healthcare system. The application of this general framework requires the cooperation of medical scientific and physician organizations.

摘要

德国也已展开了关于医疗保健优先事项的辩论。由于健康和医疗保健具有特殊的道德意义,医疗保健中的优先事项设定也涉及伦理问题。在阐明优先事项设定与资源分配之间的关系后,我首先探讨在医疗保健中设定优先事项在伦理上是否可接受甚至是必要的。如果对这第一个问题的回答是肯定的,那么接下来的问题是如何以符合伦理的合理方式确定优先事项。我将试图表明,在对美好生活的实质性观念持中立态度的自由主义正义理论框架内,为医疗保健确定优先事项是无法得到合理辩护的。相反,面对疾病、痛苦和死亡,我们需要一个关于我们想要如何生活的审议决策过程。只有参照美好生活的实质性概念,才有可能界定并论证医疗保健的优先事项。一个国家优先事项设定委员会在推动这一审议过程以及根据哪些标准和程序在德国医疗保健系统中设定优先事项制定一般性建议方面可以发挥重要作用。这一总体框架的应用需要医学科研组织和医师组织的合作。

相似文献

1
[Ethical basis of priority setting in healthcare].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):867-73. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1116-x.
2
[Prioritization does not place in an ethical vacuum].
MMW Fortschr Med. 2014 Jun 26;156(12):13.
3
[Priorization in healthcare. An important duty, an unnecessary luxury, or playing with fire? A sociomedical point of view].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):874-81. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1112-1.
4
Inequalities and healthcare reform in Chile: equity of what?
J Med Ethics. 2008 Sep;34(9):e13. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022715.
5
[The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):389-96. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
6
[The Danish debate on priority setting in medicine - characteristics and results].
Gesundheitswesen. 2011 Oct;73(10):680-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1280841. Epub 2011 Jul 27.
7
[Clinical ecomomics: a pleading for complementing the medical curriculum and specialty training].
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010 Nov;135(45):2257-62. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1267509. Epub 2010 Nov 2.
8
[Priority setting in healthcare. What can Germany learn from other countries?].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):882-9. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1115-y.
9
[Is prioritization in medicine immoral?].
MMW Fortschr Med. 2012 Dec 17;154(22):12. doi: 10.1007/s15006-012-1664-0.
10
[Helping as a matter of expedience? Ethical objections against prioritization in medicine].
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2012 Apr;51(2):96-102. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1306292. Epub 2012 May 8.

引用本文的文献

1
[Not Available].
Ethik Med. 2022;34(3):427-431. doi: 10.1007/s00481-022-00690-1. Epub 2022 Apr 4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验