Duties of healthcare institutions and climate justice
Van Gils-Schmidt and Salloch (2023) provide a thorough and thought-provoking analysis of why physicians' practical identities ought to entail climate protection, thus placing the issue outside the realm of private choice and into that of professional moral duties. In this response article, we a...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2025, Volume: 51, Issue: 11, Pages: 787-788 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Van Gils-Schmidt and Salloch (2023) provide a thorough and thought-provoking analysis of why physicians' practical identities ought to entail climate protection, thus placing the issue outside the realm of private choice and into that of professional moral duties. In this response article, we attempt to complement the authors' argument by providing a conceptual basis for a duty to climate protection not on the micro level of healthcare professionals but rather on the meso level of healthcare institutions. While these two levels are interdependent at multiple scales regarding practical implementations, they require different theoretical foundations and separate analyses of how their duties toward climate protection are justified. To do so, we need to turn to a normative theory of institutions, customarily found within normative political theory. We argue that Seumas Miller’s teleological account of social institutions provides the best framework for fleshing out why climate protection ought to be considered a moral duty of healthcare institutions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-109879 |
