American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):53-54 (2009)
|Abstract||Gesundheit and colleagues offer dramatic examples of the medical treatment of terrorists but then pose the suggestion that those who engage in terrorism forfeit their right to medical care, and, consequently, that physicians have no obligation to treat them. Their argument presupposes that a physician’s obligation to provide medical care depends on the patients’ right to health care. Therefore, someone who commits heinous and abhorrent acts thereby waives the right to health care and the physicians’ duty to provide health care might consequently be absolved. This view may appeal to physicians who have experienced the complexity and discomfort of treating someone whose morality or even humanity they question, such as a rapist, a serial killer, or a perpetrator of genocide. However we have grounds to believe that the duty of physicians to treat is not based on the moral worth of patients, but rather on the duties that physicians have, and this notion renders any concern about the unacceptability of any person’s behavior irrelevant in determining whether to provide treatment. We will first argue that not all duties are directly derived from rights, and then illustrate how deontological views, along with common views on the role morality of physicians, provide a basis for offering indiscriminate medical care. Second, we will discuss the physician’s role in the context of war, and offer one compelling moral reason on the basis of which warfare norms do indeed obligate physicians to extend their duty to care toward enemies, terrorists included, independently of whatever right they maintain.|
|Keywords||torture complicity medical duties|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Chiara Lepora & Joseph Millum (2011). The Tortured Patient: A Medical Dilemma. The Hastings Center Report 41 (3):38-47.
H. S. Richardson (2010). Public Health Doctors' Ancillary-Care Obligations. Public Health Ethics 3 (1):63-67.
Robert M. Veatch (2000). Doctor Does Not Know Best: Why in the New Century Physicians Must Stop Trying to Benefit Patients. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (6):701 – 721.
Samuel J. Huber & Matthew K. Wynia (2004). When Pestilence Prevails Physician Responsibilities in Epidemics. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (1):5 – 11.
L. A. Jansen (2013). Between Beneficence and Justice: The Ethics of Stewardship in Medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (1):50-63.
Jonathan R. Scarff & Steven Lippmann (2012). When Physicians Intervene in Their Relatives' Health Care. HEC Forum 24 (2):127-137.
Mark Sheldon (1990). HIV and the Obligation to Treat. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 11 (3).
Jolanda Dwarswaard, Medard Hilhorst & Margo Trappenburg (2011). The Doctor and the Market: About the Influence of Market Reforms on the Professional Medical Ethics of Surgeons and General Practitioners in The Netherlands. Health Care Analysis 19 (4):388-402.
Allen Buchanan (2000). Trust in Managed Care Organizations. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (3):189-212.
Gary Seay (2005). Euthanasia and Physicians' Moral Duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):517 – 533.
J. L. A. Garcia (2007). Health Versus Harm: Euthanasia and Physicians' Duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (1):7 – 24.
Petra Gelhaus (2012). The Desired Moral Attitude of the Physician: (I) Empathy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (2):103-113.
John Hardwig (1987). Robin Hoods and Good Samaritans: The Role of Patients in Health Care Distribution. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 8 (1).
Herman Nys & Paul Schotsmans (2000). Professional Autonomy in Belgium. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (5).
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads7 ( #133,668 of 551,105 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,341 of 551,105 )
How can I increase my downloads?