Article Text
Abstract
The emergence several years ago of SARS, with its high rate of infection and death among healthcare workers, resurrected a recurring ethical question: do health professionals have a duty to provide care to patients with deadly infectious diseases, even at some substantial risk to themselves and their families? The conventional answer, repeated on the heels of the SARS epidemic, is that they do. In this paper, I argue that the arguments in support of such a duty are wanting in significant respects, and that the language of duty is simply not adequate to an understanding of all the moral dimensions of professional responses to the care of risky patients. Instead, we should speak the language of virtues and ideals if we want to do justice to the complexity of such harrowing circumstances.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome and its impact on professionalism: qualitative study of physicians' behaviour during an emerging healthcare crisis
- Liver injury is independently associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19
- SARS: experience from the emergency department, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
- Infection control for SARS in a tertiary neonatal centre
- Developing the duty to treat: HIV, SARS, and the next epidemic
- The rationale of fever surveillance to identify patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome in Taiwan
- Ethics and SARS: lessons from Toronto
- Outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in a tertiary hospital in Singapore, linked to an index patient with atypical presentation: epidemiological study
- Appropriate use of personal protective equipment among healthcare workers in public sector hospitals and primary healthcare polyclinics during the SARS outbreak in Singapore
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): epidemiology and clinical features