Williams Arthur Robin
Bioethics. 2016 May;30(4):221-6. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12210. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
Last year marks the first year of implementation for both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in the United States. As a result, healthcare reform is moving in the direction of integrating care for physical and mental illness, nudging clinicians to consider medical and psychiatric comorbidity as the expectation rather than the exception. Understanding the intersections of physical and mental illness with autonomy and self-determination in a system realigning its values so fundamentally therefore becomes a top priority for clinicians. Yet Bioethics has missed opportunities to help guide clinicians through one of medicine's most ethically rich and challenging fields. Bioethics' distancing from mental illness is perhaps best explained by two overarching themes: 1) An intrinsic opposition between approaches to personhood rooted in Bioethics' early efforts to protect the competent individual from abuses in the research setting; and 2) Structural forces, such as deinstitutionalization, the Patient Rights Movement, and managed care. These two themes help explain Bioethics' relationship to mental health ethics and may also guide opportunities for rapprochement. The potential role for Bioethics may have the greatest implications for international human rights if bioethicists can re-energize an understanding of autonomy as not only free from abusive intrusions but also with rights to treatment and other fundamental necessities for restoring freedom of choice and self-determination. Bioethics thus has a great opportunity amid healthcare reform to strengthen the important role of the virtuous and humanistic care provider.
去年是美国《患者保护与平价医疗法案》和《精神健康平权与成瘾公平法案》实施的第一年。因此,医疗改革正朝着整合身心疾病治疗的方向发展,促使临床医生将医学和精神疾病合并症视为常态而非例外。在一个价值观正在从根本上进行重新调整的体系中,理解身心疾病与自主性和自决权的交叉点,因此成为临床医生的首要任务。然而,生物伦理学错失了帮助临床医生应对医学中最具伦理复杂性和挑战性领域之一的机会。生物伦理学与精神疾病保持距离,或许可以用两个总体主题来最好地解释:1)源于生物伦理学早期努力保护有行为能力的个体免受研究环境中滥用行为影响的人格观念方法之间的内在对立;2)诸如去机构化、患者权利运动和管理式医疗等结构性力量。这两个主题有助于解释生物伦理学与精神健康伦理学的关系,也可能为两者和解带来机遇。如果生物伦理学家能够重新激发对自主性的理解,即自主性不仅意味着免受滥用行为的侵扰,还意味着享有接受治疗以及恢复选择自由和自决权所需的其他基本必需品的权利,那么生物伦理学的潜在作用可能对国际人权产生最大影响。因此,在医疗改革中,生物伦理学有很大的机会来强化善良且具人文关怀的医疗服务提供者的重要作用。