23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
In this paper I will argue that in emergency cases, physician autonomy is soci-etally constrained under Principle VI of the American Medical Association's (AMA) “Principles of Medical Ethics”1 The issue will be seen to turn on whether the contextual use of “emergency” should be construed narrowly or broadly; I argue for a broadened rendering. Although a societal emergency is not defined here, I recommend that the condition of inner city healthcare presents a paradigm “patient” for such emergency care. I further urge that because societal constraints on physician autonomy are ambiguous and only derived indirectly in the AMA document, further AMA comment on physician autonomy and societal responsibility would advance clarity on the profession's commitment to the public trust.
1. As published in the American Medical News 1980; 08 1/8:9.Google Scholar
2. In Principle VII, we read that “A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to an improved community.” However, without a constraint on physician autonomy, community participation is on the same footing as societal responsibility.
3. Hilfiker, D. A doctor's view of modern medicine. The New York Times Magazine 1986:Feb 23.Google Scholar
4. Thomson, JJ. A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1971; 1(1).Google Scholar
5. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge; Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971:83.Google Scholar
