You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Ethics briefing
Medical ethics and law for doctors of tomorrow: the consensus statement restructured and refined for the next decade
  1. Pirashanthie Vivekananda-Schmidt1,
  2. Carwyn Hooper2
  1. 1 Medical Education, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  2. 2 Institute of Medical and Biomedical Education, St George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pirashanthie Vivekananda-Schmidt, Medical Education, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK; p.vivekananda-schmidt{at}sheffield.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107068

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The General Medical Council’s (GMC) Outcome for Graduates, published in 2018,1 is the latest guidance for medical schools on the GMC’s expectations of the undergraduate medical curriculum. One of its three top level outcomes—Professional Values and Behaviours—refers to medical ethics and law, professionalism and patient safety competencies. Furthermore, the recent proliferation of patient safety inquiries in the UK2–4 has elevated the emphasis on ethical medical practice5 and critical medical ethics and law competencies for future doctors.

    In response to these developments and to ensure an up to date offering, the Institute of Medical Ethics Education Committee has updated the consensus statement on the core curriculum for medical ethics and law for doctors of tomorrow.6

    This refined curriculum is the result of a national consultation process. We asked for the views of all lead teachers of medical ethics and law in all UK medical schools, the UK’s chief medical officers, the GMC, and delegates at our annual education conference in 2017 who …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The note was written by the first author and commented on and revised by the coauthor. Both authors approve this short note for publication.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests Both authors contributed to the revised curriculum the brief report discusses.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

    Other content recommended for you