Article Text
Abstract
Since its inception, bioethics’ principled stance has been to argue against paternalism and elitism, and for an inclusive ethical perspective. But at least in North America, the growth of bioethics as a special area of applied ethics has created conflicts within the field itself. Those who, a generation earlier, argued against paternalism and for both professional and public accountability in medical decision making are now part of the decision making process. Too often, it is argued in this paper, their allegiance is to the employer, or to a view of medicine that is institutionally based. As a result, it is suggested by this review, medical ethicists have adopted the perspective that, in the early 1970s, they most criticised. The answer, it is argued here, is to revisit a lexicographical ordering of responsibility in bioethics, one that recognises professionals as individuals with responsibilities, as citizens with a public posture, and finally, as professionals involved in the process of medical decision making.
- principlism
- applied ethics
- bioethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics?
- The bioethical principles and Confucius’ moral philosophy
- Introduction to The Olivieri symposium
- Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy
- The transformation of (bio)ethics expertise in a world of ethical pluralism
- Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”
- How should doctors approach patients? A Confucian reflection on personhood
- Will international human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration
- The revised International Code of Medical Ethics: an exercise in international professional ethical self-regulation
- Why not common morality?