Article Text
Commentary
Doctors should be morally common: a reply to Rosamond Rhodes
Abstract
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 Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- ‘Rethinking “Disease”: a fresh diagnosis and a new philosophical treatment’
- Is moral bioenhancement dangerous?
- The justificatory power of moral experience
- Whose dignity? Resolving ambiguities in the scope of “human dignity” in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
- Does the rejection of wrongful life claims rely on a conceptual error?
- The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide: a template for pluralistic states?
- A waste of time: the problem of common morality in Principles of Biomedical Ethics
- The ethics of and the appropriate legislation concerning killing people and letting them die: a response to Merkel
- Making sense of dignity
- Killing or letting die? Proposal of a (somewhat) new answer to a perennial question.