Albertsen Andreas
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
J Med Philos. 2015 Jun;40(3):342-62. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhv001. Epub 2015 Apr 13.
Luck egalitarianism is often taken to task for its alleged harsh implications. For example, it may seem to imply a policy of nonassistance toward uninsured reckless drivers who suffer injuries. Luck egalitarians respond to such objections partly by pointing to a number of factors pertaining to the cases being debated, which suggests that their stance is less inattentive to the plight of the victims than it might seem at first. However, the strategy leaves some cases in which the attribution of individual responsibility is appropriate (and so, it seems, is asking people to pick up the tab for their choices). One such case is oral health or significant aspects of this. It is appropriate, the paper argues, to hold people responsible for a number of factors that affect their oral health. A luck egalitarian approach inspired by John Roemer can assess whether people have acted responsibly by comparing their choices to those of their peers. A luck egalitarian approach to oral health would recommend prioritizing scarce resources in a responsibility-weighted queuing system and include copayment and general taxation among its measures of financing.
运气平等主义常常因其所谓的苛刻影响而受到指责。例如，它可能似乎意味着对受伤的未参保鲁莽驾驶者采取不援助政策。运气平等主义者部分地通过指出与正在辩论的案例相关的一些因素来回应此类反对意见，这表明他们的立场对受害者困境的忽视程度并不像乍一看那么严重。然而，这种策略留下了一些个人责任归属恰当的情况（因此，似乎要求人们为自己的选择买单也是恰当的）。其中一个这样的情况就是口腔健康或其重要方面。本文认为，让人们对影响其口腔健康的一些因素负责是恰当的。受约翰·罗默启发的运气平等主义方法可以通过将人们的选择与其同龄人进行比较来评估他们是否采取了负责任的行动。一种关于口腔健康的运气平等主义方法会建议在责任加权排队系统中优先分配稀缺资源，并将共付费用和一般税收纳入其融资措施之中。
