David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (5):388-393 (1999)
OBJECTIVES: To study and report the attitudes of patients and general practitioners (GPs) concerning the obligation of doctors to act for the good of their patients, and to provide a practical account of beneficence in general practice. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews administered to GPs and patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Participants randomly recruited from an age and gender stratified list of GPs in a geographically defined region of South Australia. The sample comprised twenty-one general practitioners and seventeen patients recruited by participating GPs. RESULTS: In practice, acting for the good of the patient not only accommodates the views of patients and GPs on expertise and knowing best, but also responds to the particular details of the clinical situation. Patients had a complex understanding of the expertise necessary for medical practice, describing a contextual domain in which they were expert, and which complemented the scientific expertise of their GPs. General practitioners identified multiple sources for their expertise, of which experience was the most significant. The role of the GP included responding to individual patients and particular clinical problems and ranged from the assumption of responsibility through to the proffering of medical advice. CONCLUSION: This study found that GPs acting for the good of their patients covered a variety of GP actions and patient preferences. Beneficence was not justified by presumed patient vulnerability or the inability of patients to understand medical problems, but furthered through a recognition of the different areas of expertise contributed by both parties to the consultation
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hugh Lacey (2002). Assessing the Value of Transgenic Crops. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4):497-511.
Wendy A. Rogers (2004). Practical Ethics for General Practice. Oxford University Press.
Christopher Dowrick & Lucy Frith (eds.) (1999). General Practice and Ethics: Uncertainty and Responsibility. Routledge.
Kristoffer Ahlstrom (2008). Epistemology and Empirical Investigation. Grazer Philosophische Studien 76 (1):109-134.
Dan Zahavi (2011). Złożona jaźń: Perspektywy empiryczne i teoretyczne. Avant 2 (T):59 - 75.
James W. McAllister (1991). The Simplicity of Theories: Its Degree and Form. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (1):1-14.
Diego S. Silva (2010). Dignity Promotion and Beneficence. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (4):365-372.
Melissa Stobie & Catherine Slack (2010). Treatment Needs in Hiv Prevention Trials: Using Beneficence to Clarify Sponsor-Investigator Responsibilities. Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):150-157.
Nora Jacobson & Diego Silva (2010). Dignity Promotion and Beneficence. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (4):365-372.
A. Braunack-Mayer (2005). What Makes a Good GP? An Empirical Perspective on Virtue in General Practice. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):82-87.
Eric Palmer (1994). Is General Beneficence Inappropriately Demanding? Southwest Philosophy Review 10 (2):85-105.
Jakob Elster (2011). Procreative Beneficence – Cui Bono? Bioethics 25 (9):482-488.
Pádraig Hogan (2011). The Ethical Orientations of Education as a Practice in its Own Right. Ethics and Education 6 (1):27 - 40.
Brad Hooker & Margaret Olivia Little (eds.) (2000). Moral Particularism. Oxford University Press.
Edmund D. Pellegrino (1988). For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. Oxford University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-13
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?