Holzer Felicitas, Biller-Andorno Nikola, Baumann Holger
Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zuerich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, Zuerich, 8006, Switzerland.
, Zuerich, Switzerland.
Med Health Care Philos. 2025 Mar;28(1):161-169. doi: 10.1007/s11019-024-10232-9. Epub 2024 Nov 23.
Saving as many lives as possible while ensuring equity for vulnerable groups through access to triage resources has been the dominant position since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the exact relationship between the principles of social justice and efficiency remains a controversial and unresolved issue. In this paper, we aim to systematically distinguish between different models of this relationship and show that conceptualizing social justice as a 'moral side-constraint' or adopting a 'balancing approach' that attempt to reconcile social justice with efficiency inevitably lead to significant moral costs that require further justification. Based on this discussion, we propose a novel "threshold model" for trading-off moral costs. According to this model, the structural impact of triage must be considered in order to determine whether one opts for triage with the primary aim of efficiency or social justice. This contextualization further explains why, in some societies and circumstances, social justice can rightly be seen as the primary concern, while in other societies and circumstances, efficiency can be defended as the primary concern.
自2020年新冠疫情爆发以来,在确保弱势群体通过获得分诊资源实现公平的同时尽可能挽救更多生命,一直是主导立场。然而,社会正义原则与效率之间的确切关系仍然是一个有争议且未解决的问题。在本文中,我们旨在系统地区分这种关系的不同模式,并表明将社会正义概念化为“道德边际约束”或采用试图调和社会正义与效率的“平衡方法”,不可避免地会导致重大的道德成本,而这需要进一步的正当理由。基于此讨论,我们提出了一种权衡道德成本的新型“阈值模型”。根据该模型,为了确定是选择以效率还是社会正义为主要目标的分诊,必须考虑分诊的结构性影响。这种情境化进一步解释了为什么在某些社会和情况下,社会正义可以被正确地视为首要关注点,而在其他社会和情况下,效率可以被辩护为首要关注点。