David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (8):465-469 (2012)
Decisions to use antibiotics require that patient interests are balanced against the public good, that is, control of antibiotic resistance. Patients carry the risks of suboptimal antibiotic treatment and many physicians are reluctant to impose even small avoidable risks on patients. At the same time, antibiotics are overused and antibiotic-resistant microbes are contributing an increasing burden of adverse patient outcomes. It is the criteria that we can use to reject the use of antibiotics that is the focus of this paper. Scanlon's contractualism explains why antibiotics should not be used to gain small benefits, even when the direct costs of antibiotics are low. We know that some individuals now (and probably more in the future will) carry a burden of irretrievable harm as a consequence of treatment- (antibiotic-) resistant infection. If we accept that the dominant justification for use of antibiotics is to prevent irretrievable harm to an individual or contact, then the use of antibiotics for self-limiting conditions, or for the treatment of individuals with conditions for which antibiotics do not substantially impact on outcomes (eg, in the latter stages of terminal illness), or for access based on preference or willingness to pay (internet or over-the-counter access), or the use of antibiotics as animal growth promoters can be rejected. Scanlon's approach also suggests that, with few new antibiotics in the pipeline and an increasing burden of disease attributable to resistant microbes, control of the spread of antibiotic-resistant microbes should be given increasing priority
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Brad Hooker (2003). Contractualism, Spare Wheel, Aggregation. In Matt Matravers (ed.), Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Frank Cass. 53-76.
Pamela Hieronymi (2011). Of Metaethics and Motivation: The Appeal of Contractualism. In R. Jay Wallace, Rahul Kumar & Samuel Richard Freeman (eds.), Reasons and Recognition: Essays on the Philosophy of T. M. Scanlon. Oxford University Press.
Sarah Marshall (2003). Scanlon and Reasons. In Matt Matravers (ed.), Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Frank Cass. 13-32.
Nicholas Southwood (2009). Moral Contractualism. Philosophy Compass 4 (6):926-937.
Nicholas Southwood (2008). A Deliberative Model of Contractualism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):183-208.
David Alm (2008). Contractualism, Reciprocity, Compensation. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2 (3):1-23.
Michael Cholbi (2002). A Contractualist Account of Promising. Southern Journal of Philosophy 40 (4):475-91.
Matt Matravers (2003). Introduction : Scanlons Contractualism. In , Scanlon and Contractualism. Frank Cass.
Jonathan Hughes & Stephen de Wijze (2001). Moral Contractualism Comes of Age. [REVIEW] Res Publica 7 (2):189--196.
Robert Merrihew Adams (2001). Scanlon's Contractualism: Critical Notice of T. M. Scanlon, "What We Owe to Each Other". Philosophical Review 110 (4):563-586.
Matthew Talbert (2006). Contractualism and Our Duties to Nonhuman Animals. Environmental Ethics 28 (2):201-215.
Eric Mack (2007). Scanlon as Natural Rights Theorist. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):45-73.
Added to index2012-03-20
Total downloads12 ( #146,821 of 1,679,382 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #182,933 of 1,679,382 )
How can I increase my downloads?