Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:01:26.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Defense of Common Morality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2022

Ruth Macklin
Ruth Macklin*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461, USA
*
Corresponding author: Email. ruth.macklin@einsteinmed.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Robert Baker and Rosamond Rhodes each argue against the universality “common morality,” the approach to ethics that comprises four fundamental principles and their application in various settings. Baker contends that common morality cannot account for cultural diversity in the world and claims that a human rights approach is superior in the context of global health. Rhodes maintains that bioethics is not reducible to common morality because medical professionals have special privileges and responsibilities that people lack in everyday life. Baker fails to demonstrate how the human rights approach to global ethics is more sensitive to culture than the use of bioethics principles that comprise common morality. Rhodes has a narrow interpretation of “common morality,” which when understood more broadly, accounts for the special privileges and obligation of medical professionals.

Keywords

common moralityhuman rightsglobal ethicsmedical professionals
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 177 - 184
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Baker, R. Reply to Gert and Beauchamp. In: Teas, W, Renteln, A, eds. Global Bioethics and Human Rights. 2nd ed. Lanham, NY & London: Rowman & Littlefield; 2020, at 33–6.Google Scholar

2. Rhodes, R. A defence of medical ethics as uncommon morality. Journal of Medical Ethics 2019;45(12):792–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.Google Scholar

4. Macklin, R. Common morality and medical ethics: Not so different after all. Journal of Medical Ethics 2019;45(12):780–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Rhodes, R. Why not common morality? Journal of Medical Ethics 2019;45(12):770–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See note 1, Baker 2020.

7. Macklin, R. Against Relativism: Cultural Diversity and the Search for Ethical Universals in Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.Google Scholar

8. See note 1, Baker 2020, at 33.

9. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly; available at https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ (last accessed 20 May 2021).

10. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965, entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19; available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx (last accessed 20 May 2021).

11. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984; entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1); available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cat.aspx (last accessed 20 May 2021).

12. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989; entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49; available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (last accessed 20 May 2021).

13. See note 1, Baker 2020, at 33.

14. See note 1, Baker 2020, at 33.

15. See note 1, Baker 2020, at 34.

16. UNESCO. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005); available at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (last accessed 21 May 2021).

17. See note 16, UNESCO 2005.

18. See note 16, UNESCO 2005.

19. See note 5, Rhodes 2019.

20. See note 2, Rhodes 2019, at 792.

21. See note 4, Macklin 2019.

22. See note 4, Macklin 2019, at 781.

23. See note 2, Rhodes 2019, at 792.

24. See note 2, Rhodes 2019, at 792.

25. See note 2, Rhodes 2019, at 792.

26. Gettleman J, Kumar H. Millions of Indians trek to the Ganges, and Modi chases their votes. New York Times 2021 Feb 19; available at www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/world/asia/modi-india-kumbh-mela-ganges.html (last accessed 20 May 2021).

27. Kershner I, Nagourney E, and Ives M. Stampede at Israel religious celebration kills at least 45. New York Times 2021 Apr 29; available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/world/middleeast/israel-mount-meron-stampede.html (last accessed 20 May 2021).

28. Rouw A, Kates J, Michaud J. Key questions about COVID-19 vaccine passports and the U.S. KFF 2021; available at https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-passports-and-the-u-s/ (last accessed 21 May 2021).

29. Murphy H. A look at Covid-19 vaccine ‘passports,’ passes, and apps around the globe. New York Times 2021 Apr 26 updated Apr 28; available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/travel/vaccine-passport-cards-apps.html (last accessed 21 May 2021).

30. See note 30, Murphy 2021.

31. Frenkel S. Forged proof of vaccines litters web. New York Times 2021 9 Apr B1.

32. See note 16, UNESCO 2005.

33. Andreopoulos, GJ, Kabasakal Arat, ZF, Juviler, P, eds. Non-State Actors in the Human Rights Universe. Boulder, CO: Kumarian Press, Inc.; 2006, at xv.Google Scholar