首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Medium-Range Narratives as a Complementary Tool to Principle-Based Prioritization in Sweden: Test Case ADHD
【2h】

Medium-Range Narratives as a Complementary Tool to Principle-Based Prioritization in Sweden: Test Case ADHD

机译:中档叙事作为瑞典基于原则的优先次序的补充工具:测试用例 ADHD

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this paper, for the benefit of reflection processes in clinical and in local, regional, and national priority-setting, we aim to develop an ethical theoretical framework that includes both ethical principles and medium-range narratives. We present our suggestion in the particular case of having to choose between treatment interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and treatment interventions for other conditions or diseases, under circumstances of scarcity. In order to arrive at our model, we compare two distinct ethical approaches: a generalist (principles) approach and a particularist (narratives) approach. Our focus is on Sweden, because in Sweden prioritization in healthcare is uniquely governmentally regulated by the “ethics platform.” We will present a (fictional) scenario to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the generalist principled perspective of the ethics platform and the particularist perspective of narrative ethics. We will suggest an alternative (moderately particularist) approach to prioritization, which we dub a “principles plus medium-range narratives” approach. Notwithstanding the undeniably central role of principles in distributive justice, we claim that medium-range narratives concerning individuals or groups who stand to benefit or lose from ADHD prioritization practices should also be read or listened to and taken into account at all levels of priority-setting. These narratives are expected to ethically optimize clinical priority-setting, as well as that undertaken at local, regional, and national levels.
机译:在本文中,为了在临床以及地方,区域和国家优先级确定中的反思过程中受益,我们旨在建立一个包括伦理原则和中端叙事的伦理理论框架。在特殊情况下,我们提出了我们的建议,即在缺乏的情况下,必须在针对注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的治疗干预措施与针对其他状况或疾病的治疗干预措施之间进行选择。为了得出我们的模型,我们比较了两种截然不同的道德方法:通才(原则)方法和特殊论(叙述)方法。我们的重点是瑞典,因为在瑞典,医疗保健的优先级是由“道德平台”唯一由政府监管的。我们将提出一个(虚构的)场景来分析伦理学平台的通才主义原则观点和叙事伦理学的特殊主义观点的优缺点。我们将建议一种优先级排序的替代方法(中等程度的特殊性),我们将其称为“原则加中型叙事”方法。尽管原则在分配司法中具有不可否认的核心作用,但我们主张,在优先事项的各个层次上,都应阅读或聆听和听取或倾听和考虑有关受益于ADHD优先实践的个人或群体的中级叙述。这些叙述有望在伦理上优化临床优先级设置,以及在地方,区域和国家级别进行的设置。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号