Article Text
Symposium: Heroes—or just doing their job?
Supererogation and altruism: a comment
Abstract
Supererogation can be distinguished from altruism, in that the former is located in the category of duty but exceeds the strict requirements of duty, whereas altruism belongs to a different moral category from duty. It follows that doctors do not act altruistically in their professional roles. Individual doctors may sometimes show supererogation, but supererogation is not a necessary feature of the medical profession. The aim of medicine is to act in the best interests of patients. This aim involves neither supererogation nor even the moral quality of beneficence. It is simply a job description. Morality enters medicine through the quality of the individual doctor's work, not by the definition of that work.
- Altruism
- beneficence
- medical aims
- professions
- supererogation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Are doctors altruistic?
- Drawing the line in clinical treatment of companion animals: recommendations from an ethics working party
- Doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic: what are their duties and what is owed to them?
- Is providing elective ventilation in the best interests of potential donors?
- Ethical dilemmas encountered by small animal veterinarians: characterisation, responses, consequences and beliefs regarding euthanasia
- and the profession of medicine
- Value promotion as a goal of medicine
- Functional neuroimaging and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from vegetative patients
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Is there an advocate in the house? The role of health care professionals in patient advocacy