论公共伦理视野下的诚信政府建设

构建诚信政府是体现“人民主权”宪政原则,适应时代发展的必然要求。加强公共伦理建设,是推进依法行政与以德行政的有机结合,是不断提高政府科学行政、民主行政、依法行政能力的重要举措,是构建诚信政府的重要途径,对于构建诚信政府十分必要和重要。分析西方政府诚信制度的建立与完善,对我国从公共伦理视野下构建诚信政府提出了几点意见。     

医疗纠纷可仲裁性的法理思考

在医患矛盾时常发生的今天,探求解决医疗纠纷的机制已经成为必要。针对医疗纠纷的可仲裁性展开法理分析,通过对国外医疗纠纷仲裁机制的考察,分析医疗纠纷仲裁的特殊功能,论证其可仲裁性,显得尤其重要。在我国立法现状的基础上,提出我国医疗纠纷可仲裁性采用一般模式的建议,具有一定的现实意义。     

锦州市区民营口腔医疗机构调查

目的：了解新医改背景下锦州市民营口腔医疗机构的资源状况。方法：通过调查问卷、现场采访等方式,以民营口腔医疗机构的负责人和口腔医生为调查对象,对锦州市区民营口腔医疗机构进行走访。结果：锦州市没有民营口腔医院,84个民营诊所拥有213台椅位,从业口腔专科医生186人。结论：个体诊所分布广泛,口腔业务量较大,占有一定市场份额;口腔诊所规模较小,医生素质偏低,专业化程度不高;民营口腔市场潜力较大,民营口腔机构也将成为口腔专业毕业生的一个重要就业渠道。     

医学英语中“计算机网络图式教学模式”的构建

大学医学英语教学改革的一个重要问题就是改革传统的教学模式,建立基于计算机网络的医学英语教学模式.现以图式理论为依据,结合计算机网络的教学手段,从多媒体网络视角探讨"计算机网络图式教学模式",以期对外语教学实践提供新的教学模式和思路.     

医疗卫生产业化改革的障碍破解

理论界对于医疗卫生“市场化”和“产业化”尚未形成统一的概念和认识,目前对医疗卫生产业化的提法也比较谨慎。卫生产业的改革和发展是我国社会改革开放和现代化建设的重要组成部分。医疗卫生产业是渐进的,不断调整完善的长期过程,需要从观念上更新、完善相关法律法规及相关政策的支持。     

农民工参与城镇医疗保障的行为研究

文章利用农民工调查数据,研究了农民工参与城镇医疗保障的影响因素以及城镇医疗保障对农民工医疗支出决策和医疗费用的影响,考察城镇医疗保障制度是否解决了农民工的医疗保障问题。研究结果发现,自评健康状况很好和很不好的农民工都不愿意参与城镇医疗保障,城镇医疗保障既存在逆向选择,也没有有效分散农民工的医疗风险。农民工是否有医疗支出和医疗费用的多少主要取决于疾病严重程度,农民工参与城镇医疗保障对此没有显著性影响。因此,现行农民工城镇医疗保障制度还没有起到为农民工提供足够的医疗保障作用。     

高职院校学生的生育道德观现状与实证研究

研究分别以分层丛集式问卷与子女价值量表对24岁以下的高职学生进行生育道德观的实证分析,旨在探讨生育道德观与未来希望生育子女数及生育挟择的整体关系。结果发现：高职学生以“权力成就”、“亲密情感”、“家庭愉悦”为最主要的认同层面;生育道德观因性剐、交友情况、父母教育程度等成长经验的不同而有所差异;生育道德观中“生育价值”、“生育代价”、“生育挟择”因素对未来希望生育子女数有一定程度的预测力。     

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of “minimal risk” and a “minor increase over minimal risk.” Focusing primarily on the definition of “minimal risk,” we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting “minimal risk”—defining it as a specific set of risks—is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.     

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.     

Less than human: a qualitative study into the experience of parents involved in the child protection system

This paper reports on the findings from a qualitative study into the experiences of parents who were involved in the English child protection system in 2013. Seventeen in‐depth interviews were conducted involving 19 parents and/or partners, and a framework approach was used to analyse the data. There were positive experiences of individual social workers and some positive experiences of the child protection system. However, the overwhelming theme of the parents' experiences was that the system was uncaring, inflexible and for some harmful to both themselves and their children. Despite being included in the child protection process, parents felt they were not afforded the same rights as a participant, as a decision‐maker or as a partner in seeking to improve the situation. The threat of consequences silenced parents who felt unable to speak out or challenge the things they disagreed with or coerced others into signing agreements they did not agree to. Such experiences related to a sense that they were being treated as ‘less than human’. These findings are considered within the context of recent reforms within the English child protection system.