Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Doctors should be morally common: a reply to Rosamond Rhodes
  1. Charles Foster1,2
  1. 1 Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  2. 2 Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Charles Foster, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UL, UK; Charles.Foster{at}


​Rosamond Rhodes contends, by reference to seven examples, that medical ethics is distinctly different from non-medical ethics. Each of those examples, on proper examination, illustrates precisely the opposite contention. It is clear not only that medical ethics relies on the same principles as non-medical (and indeed non-professional) ethics, but that it should so rely. A distinctively medical ethics would be dangerous: it would divorce ethical medical decision-making from the patients whom medicine exists to serve.

  • morality
  • ethics
  • doctors

Statistics from

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.


  • Contributors CF is the sole author of this article.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Feature article
    Rosamond Rhodes
  • Commentary
    Rosamond Rhodes

Other content recommended for you