Article Text
Abstract
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Le Morvan and Stock claim that the kantian ideal of treating people always as ends in themselves and never merely as a means is in direct and insurmountable conflict with the current medical practice of allowing practitioners at the bottom of their “learning curve” to “practise their skills” on patients. In this response, I take up the challenge they issue is and try to reconcile this conflict. The kantian ideal offered in the paper is an incomplete characterisation of Kant’s moral philosophy, and the formula of humanity is considered in isolation without taking into account other salient kantian principles. I also suggest that their argument based on “necessary for the patient” assumes too narrow a reading of “necessary”. This reply is intended as an extension to, rather than a criticism of, their work.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Miscellaneous
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Medical learning curves and the Kantian ideal
- Medicating the mind: a Kantian analysis of overprescribing psychoactive drugs
- Why the Kantian ideal survives medical learning curves, and why it matters
- Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air
- Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics
- Better patient safety: implementing exploration and exploitation learning in daily medical practice
- Good and not so good medical ethics
- Of pipes, persons, and patients
- and the profession of medicine
- Prescribing cannabis: freedom, autonomy, and values