Article Text
Abstract
The practice of medicine—and especially the patient-doctor relationship—has seen exceptional shifts in ethical standards of care over the past few years, which by and large originate in occidental countries and are then extrapolated worldwide. However, this phenomenon is blind to the fact that an ethical practice of medicine remains hugely dependent on prevailing cultural and societal expectations of the community in which it serves. One model aiming to conceptualise the dichotomous efforts for global standardisation of medical care against differing sociocultural expectations is the individualism-collectivism model, with the ‘West’ being seen as individualistic and the ‘East’ being seen as collectivistic. This has been used by many academics to explain differences in approach towards ethical practice on key concepts such as informed consent and patient autonomy. However, I argue that this characterisation is incomplete and lacks nuance into the complexities surrounding cross-cultural ethics in practice, and I propose an alternative model based on the ethics of clinical care in Hong Kong, China. Core ethical principles need not be culture-bound—indeed, their very existence mandates for them to be universal and non-derogable—but instead cultural alignment occurs in the particular implementation of these principles, insofar as they respect the general spirit of contemporary ethical standards.
- Ethics
- Informed Consent
- Cultural Diversity
- Truth Disclosure
- Personal Autonomy
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable as no data sets were generated and/or analysed for this study. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable as no data sets were generated and/or analysed for this study. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Contributors ML contributed solely and fully to this work.
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Evolving legal responses to dependence on families in New Zealand and Singapore healthcare
- Deciding about resuscitation
- Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill
- The secret art of managing healthcare expenses: investigating implicit rationing and autonomy in public healthcare systems
- Consent for anaesthesia
- What do patients value in their hospital care? An empirical perspective on autonomy centred bioethics
- A case study from the perspective of medical ethics: refusal of treatment in an ambulance
- Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: the perspective of Turkey
- “I can put the medicine in his soup, Doctor!”
- How should doctors approach patients? A Confucian reflection on personhood