LaLa 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 1 0 年前



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?



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

  • 1 0 年前




    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?


    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