首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Medical Ethics >Faith‐based NGOs and healthcare in poor countries: a preliminary exploration of ethical issues
【2h】

Faith‐based NGOs and healthcare in poor countries: a preliminary exploration of ethical issues

机译:贫穷国家中基于信仰的非政府组织和医疗保健:对道德问题的初步探索

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

An increasing number of non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) provide humanitarian assistance, including healthcare. Some faith‐based NGOs combine proselytising work with humanitarian aid. This can result in ethical dilemmas that are rarely discussed in the literature. The article explores several ethical issues, using four generic activities of faith‐based NGOs: (1) It is discriminatory to deny aid to a needy community because it provides less opportunity for proselytising work. Allocating aid to a community with fewer health needs but potential for proselytising work is unjust, since it neither maximises welfare (utilitarianism) nor assists the most needy (egalitarianism). (2) Faith‐based‐NGOs may state that proselytising work combined with humanitarian assistance improves spiritual wellbeing and overall benefit. However, proselytising work creates religious doubts, which could transiently decrease wellbeing. (3) Proselytising work is unlikely to be a perceived need of the population and, if carried out without consent, breaches the principle of autonomy. Such work also exploits the vulnerability of disaster victims. (4) Governments that decline the assistance of a faith‐based NGO involved in proselytising work may deprive the needy of aid. Three strategies are proposed: (a) Increase knowledge to empower communities, individuals and governments; information on NGOs could be provided through an accessible register that discloses objectives, funding sources and intended spiritual activities. (b) Clearly demarcate between humanitarian aid from proselytising work, by setting explicit guidelines for humanitarian assistance. (c) Strengthen self‐regulation by modifying the Code of Conduct of the Red Cross to state criteria for selecting communities for assistance and procedures for proselytising work.
机译:越来越多的非政府组织(NGO)提供人道主义援助,包括医疗保健。一些基于信仰的非政府组织将宗教化工作与人道主义援助相结合。这可能导致道德困境,这在文献中很少讨论。本文使用基于信仰的非政府组织的四项一般性活动探讨了一些道德问题:(1)拒绝向有需要的社区提供援助是歧视性的,因为它提供了较少的布道工作机会。将援助分配给健康需求较少但有潜力从事宗教工作的社区是不公正的,因为它既不能最大化福利(功利主义),也不能帮助最需要帮助的人(平等主义)。 (2)基于信仰的非政府组织可能会说,将宗教化工作与人道主义援助相结合可以改善精神健康和整体利益。但是,从事宗教活动的工作会引起宗教上的怀疑,这可能会暂时减少人们的福祉。 (3)从事宗教活动的工作不太可能被视为人们的需要,如果未经同意进行,就违反了自治原则。此类工作还利用了灾难受害者的脆弱性。 (4)拒绝参与宗教化工作的基于信仰的非政府组织的援助的政府可能剥夺了援助的需要。提出了三种策略:(a)增加知识以增强社区,个人和政府的权能;非政府组织的信息可以通过无障碍登记册提供,该登记册公开了目标,资金来源和预期的精神活动。 (b)通过制定明确的人道主义援助准则,明确区分人道主义援助与宗教化工作。 (c)通过修改《红十字会行为守则》以阐明选择援助社区的标准和开展宗教信仰工作的程序,加强自我监管。

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