Plant R
J Med Ethics. 1977 Dec;3(4):166-73. doi: 10.1136/jme.3.4.166.
Should blood be bought and sold is in crude terms the question asked and answered by Richard Titmuss in his recent book The Gift Relationship. Dr Raymond Plant, a lecturer in philosophy at Manchester University, analyses Titmuss' arguments in a paper which we are printing in two parts. Titmuss has taken the provision of blood as his example of the gift relationship--and by extension that of health care generally. Dr Plant considers in turn each of Titmuss' arguments that blood should not be a marketable commodity, the moral objections to which seem to be the erosion of freedom and of truth telling, the separation of society through the cash nexus, and its converse that the provision of health care is a means for the integration of society. Dr Plant also examines the views of other commentators on the Titmuss' theory of the value of a 'free' blood transfusion service and other medical care as a means of integration in society, and ends with his promise that in the second part of his paper he will examine Titmuss' principles not in terms of the market but rather as related to the principle of social justice.
血液是否应该买卖,粗略来讲,就是理查德·蒂特马斯在其近期著作《礼物关系》中提出并解答的问题。雷蒙德·普兰特博士是曼彻斯特大学的哲学讲师,他在一篇论文中分析了蒂特马斯的论点,我们将分两部分刊载这篇论文。蒂特马斯以血液供应为例阐述礼物关系,并进而推广至一般意义上的医疗保健。普兰特博士依次考量了蒂特马斯提出的血液不应成为可交易商品的各项论据,对此的道德异议似乎包括自由和讲真话的侵蚀、通过金钱关系导致社会分裂,以及相反观点,即医疗保健的提供是社会融合的一种方式。普兰特博士还审视了其他评论家对蒂特马斯关于“免费”输血服务及其他医疗保健作为社会融合手段的价值理论的看法,并在文末承诺,在论文的第二部分,他将不从市场角度,而是从与社会正义原则相关的角度审视蒂特马斯的原则。