Constanza Muñoz

Resumen: Este artículo se centra en el concepto de explotación, tal como ha sido usado por gran parte de la literatura no-marxista, es decir, como un concepto cuyo objeto son las transacciones particulares antes que estructuras. En este trabajo se exponen y evalúan las distintas conceptualizaciones de la explotación que ha ofrecido la literatura, teniendo como principal caso de contraste el trabajo en sweatshops. Se sostiene que pese a ofrecer condiciones competitivas, el trabajo en sweatshops es explotativo porque las empresas se desentienden de las necesidades insatisfechas de los trabajadores, pudiendo mejorarlas sin detrimento para su supervivencia. Este deber de mejorar las condiciones de los trabadores se funda en la existencia de deberes de justicia distributiva, deberes que, sin embargo, no tenemos respecto a todos los casos. Se sostiene que solo una conceptualización pluralista de la explotación, que ofrezca distintos estándares dependiendo del tipo de caso que se trate, da sentido a nuestras intuiciones y a la vez es coherente con nuestras instituciones. Abstract: This paper focuses on the concept of exploitation as it has been used by the non-Maxist literature, i.e. as a concept whose object is particular transactions rather than structures. The paper exposes and evaluates the different conceptualisations of exploitation that the literature has offered, with sweatshop labour as the main contrasting case. It is argued that despite offering competitive conditions, sweatshop labour is exploitative because firms neglect the unsatisfied needs of workers and can improve them without detriment to their survival. This duty to improve workers conditions is based on the existence of duties of distributive justice, duties which, however, we do not have in all cases. It is argued that only a pluralistic conceptualisation of exploitation, offering different standards depending on the type of case at hand, makes sense of our intuitions and at the same time is consistent with our institutions.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is impacting the delivery of healthcare worldwide, creating dilemmas related to the duty to care. Although understanding the ethical dilemmas about the duty to care among nurses is necessary to allow effective preparation, few studies have explored these concerns. Aim: This study aimed to identify the ethical dilemmas among clinical nurses in Spain and Chile. It primarily aimed to identify nurses’ agreement with the duty to care despite high risks for themselves and/or their families, describe nurses’ well-being and describe the associations between well-being and the duty to care. Research design: Cross-sectional self-reported anonymous data were collected between May and June 2020 via electronic survey distribution. Ethical considerations: The Institutional Ethical Review Committees in both countries approved the study. Findings: In total, 345 clinical nurses answered the primary question about the duty to care for the sick. Although in the total sample 77.4% agreed they have a duty to care for the sick, significant differences were found between the Spanish and Chilean samples. Overall, 53.6% of the nurses reported low levels of well-being; however, among those reporting low well-being, statistically significant differences were found between Spanish and Chilean nurses as 19.4% and 37.8%, respectively, disagreed with the statement regarding the duty to care. Discussion: Participants in both countries reported several ethical dilemmas, safety fears, consequent stress and low well-being. These results suggest that prompt actions are required to address nurses’ ethical concerns, as they might affect their willingness to work and psychological well-being. Conclusion: Our findings shed light on the ethical dilemmas nurses are facing related to the duty to care. Not only has the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic given rise to ethical challenges, but it has also affected nurses’ well-being and willingness to work during a pandemic.