• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

论爱、孤独地死去和社区。

On Love, Dying Alone, and Community.

机构信息

School of Government, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Von Hügel Institute, St Edmund's College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

出版信息

New Bioeth. 2022 Sep;28(3):238-251. doi: 10.1080/20502877.2022.2067625. Epub 2022 May 3.

DOI:10.1080/20502877.2022.2067625
PMID:35503464
Abstract

This paper examines the problem of dying alone in the context of no-visitors hospital policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. It critically analyses a rights-based solution, offering a democratized visitors policy alternative, premised on the value of legal justice. While an inclusive, participatory, and thoroughly justified visitors' policy, which takes into account the good of all stakeholders in the process, is indeed the right alternative to the paternalistic, top-down no-visitors policy, I argue that the democratized visitors' policy alternative ought to be grounded on reasons of both justice and love. Legal justice and claimable individual rights, though important, are limited and cannot fully capture the vicissitudes of mutual vulnerabilities and the moral stringency of duties of mutual care. In the context of suffering and death, instances of extreme vulnerability and interdependence, individual rights of autonomy and self-determination prove insufficient to meet our most basic needs for love, human presence, and accompaniment.

摘要

本文探讨了在 COVID-19 大流行期间无访客医院政策背景下孤独死亡的问题。它批判性地分析了一种基于权利的解决方案,提供了一种民主化的访客政策替代方案,其前提是法律正义的价值。虽然包容性、参与性和有充分理由的访客政策确实是对家长式、自上而下的无访客政策的正确替代方案,但我认为,民主化的访客政策替代方案应该基于正义和爱的理由。法律正义和可主张的个人权利虽然重要,但却是有限的,无法充分捕捉相互脆弱性的变化和相互照顾义务的道德严格性。在痛苦和死亡的背景下,极度脆弱和相互依存的情况证明,个人的自主权和自决权不足以满足我们对爱、人类存在和陪伴的最基本需求。

相似文献

1
On Love, Dying Alone, and Community.论爱、孤独地死去和社区。
New Bioeth. 2022 Sep;28(3):238-251. doi: 10.1080/20502877.2022.2067625. Epub 2022 May 3.
2
The Well-being Conception of Health and the Conflation Problem.健康的幸福概念与 conflation 问题。 (注:“conflation”常见释义为“合并;合成;异文合并” ,这里直接保留英文未翻译,因为不清楚在该语境下准确的专业译法,可根据具体学科领域进一步确定合适译法 )
New Bioeth. 2016 Apr;22(1):71-81. doi: 10.1080/20502877.2016.1155265.
3
The Moral Requirement for Digital Connectivity.数字化连接的道德要求。
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2021;31(3):327-341. doi: 10.1353/ken.2021.0014.
4
Abortion, ethics, and the common good: Who are we? What do we want? How do we get there?堕胎、伦理与共同利益:我们是谁?我们想要什么?我们如何实现目标?
Marquette Law Rev. 1993;76:701-54.
5
Is there a right to die?是否存在死亡的权利?
Hastings Cent Rep. 1993 Jan-Feb;23(1):34-43.
6
A philosophical approach to rationing.一种关于资源分配的哲学方法。
Med J Aust. 2003 May 5;178(9):454-6. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05290.x.
7
[Ethical tribulations of COVID-19: the sinister ominous, existential responsibility and Medice, Cura Te Ipsum].[新冠疫情的伦理困境:险恶不祥、生存责任与医乃仁术,先治己身]
Rev Med Chil. 2020 Nov;148(11):1668-1673. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872020001101668.
8
Dignity, Autonomy, and Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources During COVID-19.新冠疫情期间的尊严、自主和稀缺医疗资源的分配。
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):691-696. doi: 10.1007/s11673-020-09998-3. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
9
Intimacy and Family Consent: A Confucian Ideal.亲密关系与家庭同意:一种儒家理想。
J Med Philos. 2015 Aug;40(4):418-36. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhv015. Epub 2015 Jul 3.
10
Autonomy: a moral good, not a moral obsession.自主性:一种道德善,而非道德执念。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1984 Oct;14(5):40-2.