[经典道德两难] 救人问题 抽签和挂号先后
兔主席2004-04-05 16:55
[经典道德两难] 救人问题 抽签和挂号先后
参考《经典道德两难问题》
* 用有限的医疗资源救人的问题：该救哪一个？ （如换心手术）
(见本版《经典道德两难》的讨论)
到文献里面看了看，发现讨论抽签和先到先得原则（挂号先后）的内容：
Some who reject Utilitarian allocation systems on the latter ground suggest that the only way to show proper regard for the equal moral status or worth of
persons is to give them equal chances to receive the scarce good, either by using a fair lottery method in which each has an equal probability of winning, or by sing a first-come, first-serve system to approximate the randomness of a lottery. The latter proposal is clearly flawed: The poor would be disadvantaged by a first-come, first-serve system not only because they tend to be less educated and informed about medical matters but also because they are less likely to see a physician and be advised of the need to get in line for a transplant (Buchanan, 1989: 305)
采用先到先得的原则决定资源分配（即deerinwinter所说的挂号先后原则）。该原则被指责为存在不平等–歧视穷人，和我之前所指出的样。
The lottery method (assuming the lottery is fair) could e seen as showing equal respect for persons, t it surely goes too far in eschewing entirely all considerations of how much benefit an allocation will produce. Unless some initial threshold of expected benefit to the patient is used as an eligibility requirement for participation in the lottery, use of this randomising method will mean that lives of extremely poor quality will e prolonged, perhaps only briefly, at the expense of much longer lives of higher quality. (Buchanan,1989:305)
本段探讨抽签原则。文章作者认为，抽签方法乃是逃避对其他分配方式的考虑（实际上，通过不作为行为，构成了对所有其他分配原则的拒斥）。段末部分，则提供了一个实例批判。
Buchanan, Allen. “Health-care delivery and resource allocation” in Veatch, Robert M. (ed) “Medical Ethics” (Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1989) pp291-326
参考《经典道德两难问题》
* 用有限的医疗资源救人的问题：该救哪一个？ （如换心手术）
(见本版《经典道德两难》的讨论)
到文献里面看了看，发现讨论抽签和先到先得原则（挂号先后）的内容：
Some who reject Utilitarian allocation systems on the latter ground suggest that the only way to show proper regard for the equal moral status or worth of
persons is to give them equal chances to receive the scarce good, either by using a fair lottery method in which each has an equal probability of winning, or by sing a first-come, first-serve system to approximate the randomness of a lottery. The latter proposal is clearly flawed: The poor would be disadvantaged by a first-come, first-serve system not only because they tend to be less educated and informed about medical matters but also because they are less likely to see a physician and be advised of the need to get in line for a transplant (Buchanan, 1989: 305)
采用先到先得的原则决定资源分配（即deerinwinter所说的挂号先后原则）。该原则被指责为存在不平等–歧视穷人，和我之前所指出的样。
The lottery method (assuming the lottery is fair) could e seen as showing equal respect for persons, t it surely goes too far in eschewing entirely all considerations of how much benefit an allocation will produce. Unless some initial threshold of expected benefit to the patient is used as an eligibility requirement for participation in the lottery, use of this randomising method will mean that lives of extremely poor quality will e prolonged, perhaps only briefly, at the expense of much longer lives of higher quality. (Buchanan,1989:305)
本段探讨抽签原则。文章作者认为，抽签方法乃是逃避对其他分配方式的考虑（实际上，通过不作为行为，构成了对所有其他分配原则的拒斥）。段末部分，则提供了一个实例批判。
Buchanan, Allen. “Health-care delivery and resource allocation” in Veatch, Robert M. (ed) “Medical Ethics” (Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1989) pp291-326