Mansfield College, University of Oxford.
J Law Med Ethics. 2012 Summer;40(2):268-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00663.x.
What does it mean to say that there is a right to health care? Health care is part of a cooperative project that organizes finite resources. How are these resources to be distributed? This essay discusses three rival theories. The first two, a utilitarian theory and an interst theory, are both instrumental, in that they collapse rights to good states of affairs. A third theory, offered by Thomas Pogge, locates the question within an institutional legal context and distinguishes between a right to health care that results in claimable duties and other dimensions of health policy that do not. Pogge's argument relies on a list of "basic needs," which itself, however, relies on some kind of instrumental reasoning. The essay offers a reconstruction of Pogge's argument to bring it in line with a political conception of a right to health care. Health is a matter of equal liberty and equal citizenship, given our common human vulnerability. If we are to live as equal members in a political community, then our institutions need to create processes by which we are protected from the kinds of suffering that would make it impossible for us to live as equal members.
说有健康权意味着什么？医疗保健是组织有限资源的合作项目的一部分。这些资源应该如何分配？本文讨论了三种对立的理论。前两种，功利主义理论和利益理论，都是工具性的，因为它们将权利简化为好的情况。第三种理论是托马斯·波格（Thomas Pogge）提出的，它将问题置于制度法律背景中，并区分了导致可主张义务的医疗保健权利和其他卫生政策维度。波格的论点依赖于一份“基本需求”清单，而这份清单本身又依赖于某种工具性推理。本文对波格的论点进行了重构，使之符合健康权的政治概念。健康是平等自由和平等公民身份的问题，这是由于我们共同的人类脆弱性。如果我们要作为平等的成员生活在一个政治共同体中，那么我们的制度就需要建立起保护我们免受那些使我们无法作为平等成员生活的苦难的过程。
