Establishing and Defining an Approach to Climate Conscious Clinical Medical Ethics

American Journal of Bioethics:1-14 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

An anthropocentric scope for clinical medical ethics (CME) has largely separated this area of bioethics from environmental concerns. In this article, we first identify and reconcile the ethical issues imposed on CME by climate change including the dispersion of related causes and effects, the transdisciplinary and transhuman nature of climate change, and the historic divorce of CME from the environment. We then establish how several moral theories undergirding modern CME, such as virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and several theories of justice, promote both a flourishing of human medical practice and the environment. We conclude by defining an expanded the scope of CME as inclusive of not only patients, families, physicians, and other health professionals but other humans, non-humans, and their shared environment. We then apply this scope and theory to a widely used framework for applying CME, the Four Topics model, to construct a climate conscious approach to CME.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,098

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ecological Health: Ethics as the Starting Place.John Compton & Keith Meador - 2022 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 65 (4):540-547.
Getting CME Credit for IRB Work.Shiela C. Mitchell - 1988 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 10 (1):11.
Students’ perspectives on Critical Mathematics Education.Daniela Steflitsch & Andrew Brantlinger - 2023 - Prometeica - Revista De Filosofía Y Ciencias 27:263-273.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-04-20

Downloads
8 (#1,344,496)

6 months
8 (#415,167)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan & Mary Midgley - 1986 - The Personalist Forum 2 (1):67-71.
Collective harm and the inefficacy problem.Julia Nefsky - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (4):e12587.

View all 33 references / Add more references