You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Psychiatric ethics and the methodological virtues of bioethics
  1. John R McMillan
  1. Correspondence to Dr John R McMillan, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide 5100, South Australia; john.mcmillan{at}flinders.edu.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100566

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.

    Eighteen years ago, Fulford and Hope described psychiatric ethics as a bioethical ugly duckling: an area that attracted much less attention than high-profile issues such as the end of life, genetics and reproductive technologies.1 They were optimistic that this ethically rich and complex area might one day demonstrate how bioethics can mature and progress.

    Since that time, a number of influential books have appeared, journals such as JME regularly publish articles on psychiatric ethics, and it would be possible to list a number of scholars who have made significant contributions to this area. While psychiatric ethics and bioethics have matured, there are still methodological debates and a need for examples of how we can do bioethics well. The article in this issue ‘Threats and offers in community healthcare’2 is an exemplar of how we can research and write about psychiatric ethics in a way that is not only rigorous from a scholarly point of view, but also genuinely …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.