首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
职业资格
The medical community owes economists a great deal. Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences in 1998. He has spent hi
The medical community owes economists a great deal. Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences in 1998. He has spent hi
admin
2015-03-27
31
问题
The medical community owes economists a great deal. Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences in 1998. He has spent his entire career promulgating ideas of justice and freedom, with health rarely out of his gaze. Joseph Stiglitz won a Noble in 2001. In 1998, when he was chief economist at the (then) notoriously regressive World Bank, he famously challenged the Washington Consensus. And Jeff Sachs, a controversial figure to some critics, can fairly lay claim to the enormous achievement of putting health at the center of the Millennium Development Goals. His "Commission on Macroeconomics and Health" was a landmark report, providing explicit evidence to explain why attacking disease was absolutely necessary if poverty was to be eradicated. And I must offer my own personal gratitude to a very special group of economists—Larry Summers, Dean Jamison, Kenneth Arrow, David Evans, and Sanjeev Gupta. They were the economic team that drove the work of Global Health 2035.
But although we might be kind to economists, perhaps we should be tougher on the discipline of economics itself. For economics has much to answer for. Pick up any economics textbook, and you will see the priority given to markets and efficiency, price and utility, profit and competition. These words have chilling effects on our quest for better health. They seem to marginalize those qualities of our lives that we value most of all—not our self-interest, but our humanity; not the costs and benefits of monetary exchange, but vision and ideals that guide our decisions. It was these issues that were addressed at last week’s Global Health Lab, held at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Anne Mills, Vice-Director of the School, fervently argued the case in favor of economists. It was they who contributed to understanding the idea of "best-buys" in global health. It was economists who challenged user fees. And it was economists who made the connection between health and economic growth, providing one of the most compelling political arguments for taking health seriously. Some economists might adore markets, but not health economists, she said. "Health care is different." For her kind of economist, a health system is a "social institution that embodies the values of society".
Although competition has a part to play in health, it should be used judiciously as a mechanism to improve the quality of care. Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK’s Department for International Development, expressed his contempt for those who profess indifference to economics. Economics is about the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Anyone who backed the inefficient allocation of resources is "immoral". He did criticize economists for their arrogance, though. Economists seemed to believe their ideas should be accepted simply because of the authority they held as economists. Economics, he said, is only one science among many that policy makers have to take into account. But Clare Chandler, a medical anthropologist, took a different view. She asked, what has neoliberal economics ever done for global health? Her answer, in one word, was "inequality". Neoliberal economics frames the way we think and act. Her argument suggested that any economic philosophy that put a premium on free trade, privatization, minimal government, and reduced public spending on social and health sectors is a philosophy bereft of human virtue. The discussion that followed, led by Martin McKee, posed difficult questions. Why do economists pay such little attention to inequality? Why do economists treat their theories like religions? Why are economists so silent on their own failures? Can economics ever be apolitical? There were few satisfactory answers to these questions.
Which of the following is the closest in meaning to "discipline" in PARAGRPH 2?
选项
A、Subject.
B、Lesson.
C、Punishment.
D、Regulation.
答案
A
解析
discipline在此处指的是一门学科,故选subject。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/PrCv777K
本试题收录于:
英语学科知识与教学能力题库教师资格分类
0
英语学科知识与教学能力
教师资格
相关试题推荐
阅读下面材料,回答问题。在学习“俄国农奴制改革”时,教师先利用投影显示新闻片段:据俄罗斯新闻网2005年6月8日报道,亚历山大二世的改革,使俄罗斯最终告别了落后的农奴制。为了纪念这位沙皇在世界近代史上作出的巨大贡献,俄罗斯政府于2005年6月7日,在莫
Atahigherlevelofwriting,whichofthefollowingcognitive,skillsshouldNOTencouraged?
设计任务:根据所提供信息和语言素材设计一节说写课的教学方案。该方案应突出下列要点:teachingobjectivesteachingcontentskeyanddifficultpointsma
Teachersbelievinginthe______modelinageneralsenseusuallyfollowthesequenceofteachingnewwords,sentencesandthent
UnlessyouspendmuchtimesittinginacollegeclassroomorbrowsingthroughcertainareasoftheInternet,it’spossiblethat
Hepledgedsupportfor"______care",whereyoungsterswerelookedafterbycloserelativeslikeauntsoruncles,butnotparent
JatenderpalSinghBhullar,25,isaguardsmaninBritain.OnDec11,2012,hebecamethefirstIndiansoldiertoparadeoutside
Theclassroomteachingenvironmentconsistsofclassroomenvironmentand______.
______ismainlybasedonformaltesting,andthejudgmentaboutthelearner’sperformanceisusedforadministrativepurpose,e.
______tellswhereapersoncomesfrom,whereas______tellswhathedoes.
随机试题
关于渐变流,下述说法中错误的是()。
仲裁与诉讼的根本区别是()
李商隐《锦瑟》:此情可待成追忆,_________。
向日葵、甜菜、高粱和棉花属耐酸性植物。[]
乳痈初期的内服方是
患者,男,50岁。急性胰腺炎住院。医嘱:立即插胃管进行胃肠减压。如果在插管过程中,该患者出现恶心呕吐,护士首先应
中小跨桥梁实体桥墩的墩帽厚度,不应小于()。【2013年真题】
佝偻病的预防原则是:系统管理,综合防治,因地制宜,早防早治。()
宪法的修改,应由全国人民代表大会以全体代表的()
They’ve______thepricesintheshop,soit’sagoodtimetobuy.
最新回复
(
0
)