J Med Ethics. 2017 Aug;43(8):560-561. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103163. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
Michael Blake holds that liberal states are precluded from introducing compulsory medical service to improve access to health care under conditions of critical health worker shortage. "Emergency circumstances" are the only exception when the suspension of liberty may be justified. I argue that there are three problems with Blake's emergency justification of compulsory service. First, his concept of emergency is vague. Second, his account does not really rely on emergency as much as liberty. Third, his conception of permissible restrictions of liberty is too narrow. I argue that liberties may be limited to some degree, temporarily, for the sake of attaining the capacities necessary for the exercise of liberties and for safeguarding the social conditions of the right to health. I conclude that in poor societies, temporarily delaying emigration through a highly qualified compulsory medical service can sometimes be justified.
迈克尔·布雷克认为，在卫生工作者严重短缺的情况下，自由国家被禁止引入强制性医疗服务以改善医疗保健的可及性。“紧急情况”是唯一可以证明暂停自由是合理的例外情况。我认为，布雷克对强制性服务的紧急情况的理由有三个问题。首先，他的紧急情况概念是模糊的。其次，他的解释并没有真正像自由那样依赖紧急情况。第三，他对可允许的限制自由的概念过于狭隘。我认为，为了获得行使自由的必要能力，并保障健康权利的社会条件，自由在一定程度上、暂时地受到限制是可以的。我得出结论，在贫穷的社会中，通过一项高素质的强制性医疗服务暂时延迟移民有时是合理的。
