Schneiderman L J, Jecker N S
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0622, USA.
Theor Med. 1996 Mar;17(1):33-44. doi: 10.1007/BF00489739.
Should the nation provide expensive care and scarce organs to convicted felons? We distinguish between two fields of justice: Medical Justice and Societal Justice. Although there is general acceptance within the medical profession that physicians may distribute limited treatments based solely on potential medical benefits without regard to nonmedical factors, that does not mean that society cannot impose limits based on societal factors. If a society considers the convicted felon to be a full member, then that person would be entitled to at least a "decent minimum" level of care--which might include access to scarce life-saving organs. However, if criminals forfeit their entitlement to the same level of medical care afforded to all members of society, they still would be entitled to a kind of "rudimentary decent minimum" granted to all persons on simple humanitarian grounds. Almost certainly this entitlement would not include access to organ transplants.
国家是否应该为已定罪的重罪犯提供昂贵的医疗服务和稀缺的器官？我们区分了两个正义领域：医学正义和社会正义。尽管医学界普遍认可医生可以仅基于潜在的医疗益处来分配有限的治疗，而不考虑非医学因素，但这并不意味着社会不能基于社会因素施加限制。如果一个社会认为已定罪的重罪犯是其正式成员，那么这个人至少有权获得“体面的最低限度”的医疗服务——这可能包括获得稀缺的救命器官。然而，如果罪犯丧失了获得社会所有成员同等医疗水平的权利，他们仍然有权基于简单的人道主义理由获得给予所有人的一种“基本体面的最低限度”医疗服务。几乎可以肯定的是，这种权利不包括器官移植。
