دانلود کتاب چگونه نظریه حقوقی می تواند زندگی اخلاق مراقبت های بهداشتی را نجات دهد

Healthcare ethics consultation has had a place in healthcare for many decades, yet the nature of the work is not well understood by many of its critics or its defenders. Practising healthcare ethicists (or PHEs) have been described as compromised and ineffectual as well as politicized and undemocratic, and their promise to offer sound advice has been deemed irredeemably incoherent in the context of value pluralism. In this book I tease out what is instructive in these critiques and argue that they may be answered by reviewing the conflict of interest literature, by exploring what is distinctive about the PHE role, and by reflecting on some important debates on the nature of legal interpretation and the function of judges.
The most challenging aspect of any PHE’s role is to provide support for the man¬agement of so-called hard cases, therefore I introduce a typology of hard cases. Emphasis is placed on what I call (borrowing from the legal theoretical literature) penumbral ethical cases. Legal theory, especially that part of legal theory that deals with what H. L. A. Hart called penumbral cases, can help PHEs, and others, to appreciate the fact that theoretical disagreement need not signal that the field has little to offer, nor need it imply that all answers are equally defensible in the hardest of cases.
Finally, I argue that legal theory can provide a jumping-off point for the study of insufficiently explored topics related to PHE professionalization. Legal theorists have long attended to the relationship between law and morality, the problem of obedience in wicked legal systems, and the supposed tension between democracy and the role of an expert judiciary. An appreciation that these debates are not unique to the practice of healthcare ethics may help PHEs to engage critics with a renewed confidence and some fresh approaches to perennial, and hitherto unproductive, arguments. More specifically, it is my hope that this work will serve as an invitation to collaboration between those working in legal theory and those practising as healthcare ethicists. The nature and limit of legal interpretation is a topic that is of great interest at present, and work that straddles both worlds may invite fresh approaches to problems that can seem intransigent or irresolvable. Although the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on the legality of abortion has prompted widespread concern about the impact of a politicized judiciary, I take the vigorous debate that is attending the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al. decision to be a cause for some optimism. Legal theorists, and members of the public, are united in understanding that rulings which implicate the rights, values, and life chances of those that fall under their jurisdiction are matters of grave import, and that they must be defended or opposed on principled grounds. Although the legal status of access to abortion services is a polarizing topic, and passions understandably are running very high, it is also evident that many are pre¬pared to engage in careful and reasoned arguments that can clarify how specific cases ought—and ought not—to be decided.