Williamson Laura
Center for Bioethics and Health Policy, Institute of Public & Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, USA
J Med Ethics. 2020 Nov 11;47(12):e9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106661.
There is a long-standing failure to create an ethical culture around substance use disorders (SUDs) or dependence that actively supports people's recovery efforts. Issues which impede the development of prorecovery environments are complex, but include the far-reaching effects of the social stigma that surrounds SUDs; and the failure to harness relational and social support that allows debates to transcend blaming individual substance users. As part of efforts to create prorecovery environments, it is important to acknowledge that bioethics debate on SUDs is narrow in scope, prioritising topics related to its traditional interests in individual autonomy and novel technologies. As a result, it has not played a significant role in helping to transform the ethical cultures in which substance use recovery takes place. For example, it largely neglects the ethical challenges of developing an empathic, person-centred approach to substance use problems that listens and responds to the voices of clients. It has also participated little in efforts to develop a positive response to reducing the toxic effects of stigma. Indeed, some contributions from the field fan stigma, rather than alleviate it. The aim of this paper is to seed broader ethical debate, in academic literature and lay/professional communities, on how societies should respond to SUDs: steering a course between the critical, but narrow approach of bioethics and the empowerment discourse of evidence-based treatments.
长期以来,围绕物质使用障碍(SUDs)或成瘾问题未能营造一种积极支持人们康复努力的道德文化。阻碍康复环境发展的问题错综复杂,其中包括围绕SUDs的社会污名所产生的深远影响;以及未能利用人际关系和社会支持,从而使相关辩论无法超越对个体物质使用者的指责。作为营造康复环境努力的一部分,必须认识到关于SUDs的生物伦理辩论范围狭窄,主要关注与个体自主性和新技术等传统兴趣相关的话题。因此,它在帮助转变物质使用康复所发生的道德文化方面并未发挥重要作用。例如,它很大程度上忽视了以共情、以人为本的方式应对物质使用问题所面临的伦理挑战,这种方式需要倾听并回应服务对象的声音。它在努力形成对减少污名毒性影响的积极回应方面也几乎没有参与。事实上,该领域的一些观点反而加剧了污名,而非减轻污名。本文的目的是在学术文献以及普通/专业群体中引发更广泛的关于社会应如何应对SUDs的伦理辩论:在生物伦理学批判性但狭窄的方法与循证治疗的赋权话语之间找到一条路径。