David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (6):701 – 721 (2000)
While twentieth-century medical ethics has focused on the duty of physicians to benefit their patients, the next century will see that duty challenged in three ways. First, we will increasingly recognize that it is unrealistic to expect physicians to be able to determine what will benefit their patients. Either they limit their attention to medical well-being when total well-being is the proper end of the patient or they strive for total well-being, which takes them beyond their expertise. Even within the medical sphere, they have no basis for choosing among the proper medical goals for medicine. Also, there are many plausible strategies for relating predicted benefits to harms, and physicians cannot be expert in picking among these strategies. Second, increasingly plausible ethical systems recognize that in some cases, patient benefit must be sacrificed to protect patient rights including the right to the truth, to have promises kept, to have autonomy respected, and to not be killed. Third, ethics of the next century will increasingly recognize that some patient benefits must be sacrificed to fulfill duties to others - either the duty to serve the interests of others or other duties such as keeping promises, telling the truth, and, particularly, promoting justice. Physicians in the twenty-first century will be seen as having a new, more limited duty to assist the patient in pursuing the patient's understanding of the patient's interest within the constraints of deontological ethical principles and externally imposed duties to promote justice. The result will be a duty to be loyal to the consumer of health care with the recognition that often this will mean that the physician is not permitted to pursue the physician's understanding of the patient's well-being.
|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
Yin-Yang Lee & Julia L. Lin (2009). Trust but Verify: The Interactive Effects of Trust and Autonomy Preferences on Health Outcomes. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 17 (3):244-260.
Similar books and articles
Simon N. Whitney & Laurence B. McCullough (2007). Physicians' Silent Decisions: Because Patient Autonomy Does Not Always Come First. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (7):33 – 38.
Erich H. Loewy (2005). In Defense of Paternalism. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (6):445-468.
David B. Resnik (2005). The Patient's Duty to Adhere to Prescribed Treatment: An Ethical Analysis. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2):167 – 188.
Michael J. Meyer (1992). Patients' Duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):541-555.
Bjørn Hofmann, Anne Myhr & Søren Holm (2013). Scientific Dishonesty—a Nationwide Survey of Doctoral Students in Norway. BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):1-9.
Gene H. Stollerman (1984). Promoting Patient Autonomy: Looking Back. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (1).
Eugene V. Boisaubin (2004). Observations of Physician, Patient and Family Perceptions of Informed Consent in Houston, Texas. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (2):225 – 236.
Gary B. Weiss (1984). Patient Truthfulness: A Test of Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):353-372.
Beverly Woodward (2001). Confidentiality, Consent and Autonomy in the Physician-Patient Relationship. Health Care Analysis 9 (3):337-351.
Robert M. Veatch (2009). Patient, Heal Thyself: How the New Medicine Puts the Patient in Charge. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #100,575 of 1,089,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,722 of 1,089,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?