Видео

講者Arnold回應：多謝你的留言！面對喪親者，的確可以分享一些自己類似的經歷，雖然不能完全明白，但藉著真誠的分享，讓對方也知道你某程度上能感受到他的痛，有這一份同步/同理心，也能帶來安慰。

願主祝福，

你好，請問你有沒有剪醫生的聯絡資料

@@shanyip8020 你意思是說鄭醫生是嗎？我沒有他的聯絡資料，但那時最後我找到他是在一所政府醫院工作，我打電話去查詢，他們說我不是醫院病人，不能提供他的聯絡資料及代聯繫。

謝謝通知，已加入清單。

From Roger Chung: 1. 美國那一張簡報，包不包括精神健康？是否個人心理因素都有影響覺得自己是否健康這個問題呢？ Self-rated health is a subjective health measurement, not objective measurement. It includes every aspect of health that matters to the person him/herself. （自我評分的健康，是一個主觀的健康量度，而並非一個客觀的量度，這包括了受訪者重視的各個健康面向）

2. 外國重爭辯戴不戴口罩，與教育又有沒有關？但又說教育多一點就會更健康，那如何理解？爭論是否戴口罩是文化價值觀因素有關？ Yes, it has to do with the culture, education, societal beliefs. The answer to this question is quite complicated. The US is built upon the ideology of libertarianism, and the debate of mask wearing centers on libertarianism vs. communitarianism (not communism). Libertarianism emphasizes on respect for individual's liberty, while communitarianism emphasizes on the common good for the society. （是的，這是關乎文化、教育、社會性的信念。這個答案是有一點複雜性。 美國事件基於自由主義的意識型態現在是否要帶口罩這件事的爭辯核心事件記載自由主義與社群主義（不是共產主義）。自由主義強調的是尊重每個人的自由，而社群主義強調的是社會大眾的共同利益。） This is a matter of balance between individual's interests vs. the interest of the bigger society. We call this situation an ethical dilemma/conflict. It's hard to imagine this would happen in a country like China. (這是關乎在個人利益與整個社會利益的平衡，我們會稱這個狀況為道德倫理上的困境或衝突｡ 這是很難想像，這件事情會在一個像中國這樣的地方發生。) On the other hand, more educated people can have better job, and better job can lead to more income and more wealth. Moreover, more educated people have better health literacy, greater social capital and more resourceful social network. There is no conflict between the two concepts. （另一方面,接受較多教育的朋友，可以有更佳的工作，更佳的工作亦會帶來更多的收入及財富｡再者，接受較多教育的朋友，會有較多健康知識，更多社會資本及更多資源豐富的社交網絡，這兩個概念是沒有衝突的｡）

3. 各國在covid-19應對, 哪些國家的手法較出色值得參考? Each country has some pluses and minuses. It's not which country, but which measure, that works. For example, while it is uncontentious that most of the governmentally implemented anti-COVID-19 policies and interventions around the world (e.g., mandatory mask-wearing in public places, social distancing, mandatory quarantine of travelers, big data surveillance, border control, and economic lockdown) are aligned with the pursuit of utilitarian objectives of disease prevention and health protection, it is questionable whether tensions and conflicts between different ethical considerations have been sufficiently and explicitly considered in their conception and decision-making. All the coercive public health interventions mentioned above (to a lesser extent for the mask-wearing policy) clearly impose limitations on important non-utilitarian ethical considerations, including liberty of action and movement, as well as privacy (especially big data surveillance), albeit to various degree and extensivity. However, even when it comes to the mandatory mask-wearing policy in public places, the essentiality of its contents remains debatable, despite the policy seemingly being effective (i.e., countries that implemented mask-wearing policies tend to fare better), proportionate (i.e., its benefits of protection from a potentially lethal disease apparently outweigh its relative minor harms of stuffiness, headaches, and allergies), less infringing on liberty and freedom of action and movement (i.e., one should most probably be able to freely move around while wearing mask), and publicly explained by the relevant agency. The question to be asked regarding essentiality is-is there any alternative strategy that is less morally troubling? There is ostensibly no alternative that is less morally troubling and as effective and proportionate as a mask-wearing policy for outside-goers, especially when vaccines have not been widely available yet; however, the socially and economically disadvantaged tend to have worse access and lower affordability to personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, and the nature of their jobs tend to disallow them from tele-working, thereby exposing them to greater risk in the public. As a result, this version of mandatory mask-wearing policy is potentially in conflict with the ethical consideration of distributive justice and equity. While the virus itself does not discriminate, the policy may become discriminatory. An alternative mask-wearing policy that may be less morally troubling is one that takes socioeconomic inequalities and social determinants of health into account; for example, in addition to mandatory mask-wearing in public places, the policy can include need-based distribution of masks and other PPE to the disadvantaged.

(supplementary for question 1: Self-rated health measurement has very high validity, because if you think you're not well, then it's very likely that you don't function well. Self-rated health is considered to be a very robust and strong measurement of health.)