In our article, Where the ethical action is, we argue that medical and ethical modes of thought are not different in kind but merely different aspects of a clinical situation. In response, Emmerich argues that in so doing, we neglect several important features of healthcare and medical education. Although we applaud the spirit of Emmerich’s response, we argue that his critique is an attempt at a general defence of the value of bioethical expertise in clinical practice, rather than a specific critique of our account.
- Ethics- Medical
- Philosophy- Medical
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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 Both authors are responsible for conceptualisation; formal analysis; writing the original draft; and editing.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
- Original research
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Does bioethics exist?
- Bioethics and health and human rights: a critical view
- Where the ethical action also is: a response to Hardman and Hutchinson
- Digital bioethics: introducing new methods for the study of bioethical issues
- Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students
- Medical ethics and law for doctors of tomorrow: the 1998 Consensus Statement updated
- The formative years: medical ethics comes of age
- Scaling ethics up and down: moral craft in clinical genetics and in global health research
- Fifty years of medical ethics: from the London Medical Group to the Institute of Medical Ethics
- Medical ethics: principles, persons, and perspectives: from controversy to conversation