PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 3161187

Why solutions continue to elude us.

Abstract

Three issues addressed in Robert Weir's book Selective Nontreatment of Handicapped Newborns raise important questions about the social and political context of moral judgment, and the relation of moral judgment to moral theory. Arguments to the effect that infants are not moral "persons" as we normally understand the concept of personhood, illuminate the dialectical relationship between sound, confident moral judgments and moral theories. The way we describe and label decisions to offer or not to offer particular treatments to specific individuals has political and moral consequences. In general, we should opt for descriptions that display, rather than conceal, the problematic and controversial aspects of our decisions. The active killing of patients can only be defended from the narrowest viewpoint of minimizing that individual's suffering. It ignores the requirements made of other moral actors, and it fails to acknowledge a number of important facts about social institutions. Workable solutions must be attentive to the political and social context of moral dilemmas.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T H Murray. 1985. Why solutions continue to elude us.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(85)90187-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On health, ability and activity: comments on some basic notions in the ICF.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to highlight and at the same time criticize the holistic view of health expressed in the "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)". Particular attention will be paid to the idea suggested in the ICF that not only the ability to perform a specified action but also its actual performance is included in the person's health. My argument intends to show that this is an untenable position. METHOD: The theoretical platform of this paper is philosophical action theory. My argument makes particular use of the distinctions between ability, opportunity, activity and will. My analysis also uses some insights from the contemporary philosophical discussion of health concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Ability (or capacity) and its opposite disability (or incapacity) are essential ingredients in the implicit philosophy of health of the ICF. However, the ICF also puts an emphasis on the actual performance of actions. This is entailed by the performance qualifier that is included in the ICF. I give some arguments for questioning the relevance of this qualifier if it is intended to have a place in the concept of health or have a general function for decisions in health care or rehabilitation. Instead I suggest the introduction of an opportunity qualifier, which could fulfill some of the purposes intended for the performance qualifier.

Persons with Disabilities↗