Suppr超能文献

对舒克莱恩克和斯莫林所著《为何在自由民主国家医疗专业人员对依良心拒服兵役 accommodation 没有道德诉求》的回应

Response to: 'Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies' by Schuklenk and Smalling.

作者信息

Lyus Richard John

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2017 Apr;43(4):250-252. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103643.

Abstract

Bioethicists commenting on conscientious objection and abortion should consider the empirical data on abortion providers. Abortion providers do not fall neatly into groups of providers and objectors, and ambivalence is a key theme in their experience. Practical details of abortion services further upset the dichotomy. These empirical facts are important because they demonstrate that the way the issue is described in analytical bioethics does not reflect reality. Addressing conscientious objection as a barrier to patient access requires engaging with those who provide the service and those who are able to but do not. The experiences of doctors facing these decisions potentially challenge and expand our understanding of the issue as an ethical concern.

摘要

评论出于良心拒医和堕胎问题的生物伦理学家应考虑有关堕胎服务提供者的实证数据。堕胎服务提供者并非简单地分为支持和反对堕胎的两类,矛盾心理是他们经历中的一个关键主题。堕胎服务的实际细节进一步打破了这种二分法。这些实证事实很重要,因为它们表明分析性生物伦理学中对该问题的描述方式并不反映现实。将出于良心拒医视为患者获得服务的障碍来处理,需要与提供服务的人和有能力提供但未提供服务的人进行接触。面临这些决策的医生的经历可能会挑战并扩展我们对这一问题作为伦理关切的理解。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验