LaLa 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 1 0 年前

急........英文好的人幫幫我~~英文翻譯(20點)

不要用翻譯軟體或翻譯網站翻的,英文好的人麻煩幫個忙吧~感激不盡!

The debate over personal responsibility for health, which has continued for a decade in health policy forums, is a complex phenomenon.It is also about the degree of responsibility for the health of the public which ought to be placed on non-persons, primarily industry and government.The argument for assigning responsibility for health to the individual is often an attempt to absolve these large institutions of blame for having caused sickness or for having failed to provide care, respectively.

Political scientists and historians are better equipped than philosophers to determine the real agendas operation in the lifestyle debate.I have been concerned here with discussion of only one component issue: whether those who indulge in unhealthy habits ought to be singled out for certain kinds of special treatment at the hands of the state.In particular, I have sought to review and to evaluate arguments which would justify attempts to prevent risk taking, or to force those who become ill through unhealthy habits to pay more for their care than others (or, in extreme cases, to be denied care altogether).

These aeguments come in two distinct varieties, one “right” and one “left.”The approach from the right is reminiscent of the theme of the “deserving poor,” which guided welfare policy.It unabashedly recognizes a category of the “undeserving sick” and wants to show them no mercy.However, the approach requires a criterion for judging when an individual has done enough to protect his health, and this is as intractable a problem as finding a threshold for adequacy in personal contribution to the nation’s overall welfare.On an extreme interpretation, nothing would be enough.

The “health nut” who does all he can to stay in shape could be deemed a parasite if he asked for help in paying for medical care for an “involuntary” illness (e.g., genetically based)-for could he not have worked harder and bought private insurance so as to avoid placing burdens on others?

已更新項目:

第三段的第二個單字打錯了,是arguments

2 個已更新項目:

倒數第二段的倒數第二行,中間是nation's 沒有分開

2 個解答

評分
  • 1 0 年前
    最佳解答

    關於個人健康責任的爭論在健康政策論壇延續了數十年,這是一個複雜的現象。這也關係到大眾健康的責任的程級不應該放在個人身上,而主要應放在工業與政府方面。將健康責任指向個人的主張,反而多半都嘗試著要替那些被責怪為造成人們生病和沒有提供照顧的大機構脫罪。

    政治和歷史學者對於決定與生活有關的辯論的議題,比哲學家門更在行。在這裡,我從未考慮過這只有單一內容的話題:那些沈迷於不健康習慣者,應由政府機構將他們挑選出來接受一些特定治療。特別是,我已經在從新考慮和評估這些公平防止危險發生的方法,或者是強迫那些因為不健康習慣變的病厭厭的人們,付出比其他人更多的金錢(or某代價)(或是,更極端的情況,拒絕照顧)。

    這些主張造成兩種明顯的區別,分別由左和右的觀點來看。從右的觀點來看,又回到了主導福利政策的"窮人應受照顧"的主題"。這毫不掩飾地承認了有一類"不應受照顧的病人",並且打算對他們不給予任何同情。然而,以這種方法在判斷個人為自己的健康做夠不夠多時,是需要一個準則的,並且尋找個人對國家福利貢獻的一個合適標準,也是一個棘手的問題。在最嚴苛的標準下,做再多都不夠。

    這些"健康傻瓜"竭盡所能的保持健康,並且他們在對先天性疾病提出照顧的要求時,可能會被視為社會的寄生蟲 - 難道他不更應該努力工作和購買私人保險來避免造成社會上其他人的負擔嗎?

    給你參考

    參考資料: 自己
    • Commenter avatar登入以對解答發表意見
  • 1 0 年前

    對為健康的個人責任的辯論,已經在健康政策論壇方面十年繼續, 是複雜的phenomenon.It也是大約對應該被安置在非人身上的公眾的健康的責任的度, 主要工業和government.The 論點適合分發對的責任 健康給個人經常適合引起病免除這些責備的大機構的一嘗試或者為不能提供關心, 分別。

    政治科學家和史學家裝備良好, 確定真正的議程操作的哲學家在生活模式debate.I裡用只一個組成部分問題的討論在這裡有關︰ 是否沈迷于不健康的習慣的那些人應該被在特別的state.In的控制下為某些種優待挑選, 我想辦法檢閱並且評價哪個證明是正確的的辯論試圖防止風險承擔, 與其它相比較,或者迫使因不健康的習慣生病的那些人為他們的關心更支付 (或者,在極端的情況裡,被完全拒絕小心)。

    這些aeguments進來兩不同的種類,一‥right〃和一‥left。 〃The從權利那裡接近使人想起糟糕的‥deserving的主題, 引導福利的〃policy.It unabashedly認出一個‥undeserving sick〃的種類並且想要沒有把mercy.However顯示給他們, 這種方法需要判斷什麼時候個人已經做足夠保護他的健康的標準, 這從一的倔強問題到發現給在個人的捐款給nation s內的充分的一門檻總的welfare.On一種極端解釋, 沒有什麼將是足夠的。

    盡力保持外形的‥health nut〃可能被認為為一只寄生動物, 如果他請求幫助在過程中,為醫學關心一種‥involuntary〃病支付(例如, 創始基于)適合能他不更努力工作並且買私人保險費以便避免將負擔放于其它人上?

    • Commenter avatar登入以對解答發表意見
還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。