Serious professional misconduct and the need for an apology

Clinical Ethics 5 (3):130-135 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I argue that doctors who are found guilty of serious professional misconduct should be required to apologize as a condition of their registration. I argue that such a requirement is to be justified on the basis of the need to protect patients, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. I also answer an objection that might be made to the position I defend. Finally, I consider whether there should be any exceptions to the demand for an apology from doctors who have been found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,400

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

Misconduct in science and the German law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
Professional Responsibility, Misconduct and Practical Reason.Chris Clark - 2007 - Ethics and Social Welfare 1 (1):56-75.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
48 (#246,404)

6 months
1 (#452,962)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Demian Whiting
University of Hull

Citations of this work

Communication: illusion or reality?S. Eckstein - 2010 - Clinical Ethics 5 (3):113-114.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references