Dev World Bioeth. 2024 Mar;24(1):31-36. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12415. Epub 2023 Jul 18.
In this paper, I raise some doubts about Nicole Hassoun's account of the obligations of states, pharmaceutical firms, and consumers with regard to global health, presented in Global Health Impact. I argue that it is not necessarily the case, as Hassoun claims, that if states are just, and therefore satisfy all of their obligations, then consumers will not have strong moral reasons, and perhaps obligations, to make consumption choices that are informed by principles and requirements of justice. This is because there may be justice-based limits on what states can permissibly and feasibly do both to promote access to existing drugs for all of those who need them, and to promote research and development for new drugs that could treat diseases that primarily affect the global poor. One important upshot of my argument is that there can be reasons for organizations like the Global Health Impact Organization to exist, and to do the kind of work that Hassoun argues is potentially valuable in our deeply unjust world, even in much less unjust worlds in which states and firms largely, or even entirely, comply with their obligations.
在本文中，我对尼科尔·哈松（Nicole Hassoun）在《全球健康影响》一书中提出的关于国家、制药公司和消费者在全球卫生方面的义务的观点提出了一些质疑。我认为，并不像哈松声称的那样，如果国家是公正的，因此履行了所有的义务，那么消费者就没有强烈的道德理由，也许也没有义务根据正义的原则和要求做出知情的消费选择。这是因为，对于国家来说，可能存在基于正义的限制，使其既可以为所有需要的人推广现有药物的获取，又可以为可能治疗主要影响全球贫困人口的疾病的新药研发提供支持。我观点的一个重要结果是，像全球健康影响组织（Global Health Impact Organization）这样的组织存在的理由，以及做哈松所认为的在我们这个极度不公正的世界中具有潜在价值的工作的理由，即使在国家和企业在很大程度上甚至完全履行其义务的不那么不公正的世界中也是如此。
