Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:07:23.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commentary: Medical Ethics: A Distinctive Species of Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2020

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Departments and Columns
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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. Rhodes, R.Medical ethics: Common or uncommon morality. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020; 29(3):404–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2. Charles Foster seems to take this view. He dismisses all the concrete examples of distinctive features of medical ethics offered by Rhodes as just more elaborate examples of common morality. His conclusion in this regard is, “We’re back to justification on the basis of doing good or avoiding harm.” Foster, C.Doctors should be morally common: A reply to Rosamond Rhodes. Journal of Medical Ethics 2019 (in press). Doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105878CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3. Gert, B, Clouser, KD, Culver, CM. Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997Google Scholar.

4. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013Google Scholar.

5. See note 1, Rhodes 2020.

6. Moore, B.Why Only common morality? Journal of Medical Ethics 2019 (in press). Doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105840CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7. See note 4, Beauchamp, Childress 2013, at 410–1.

8. See note 4, Beauchamp, Childress 2013, at 410.

9. Macklin, R.Common morality and medical ethics: Not so different after all. Journal of Medical Ethics 2019 (in press). Doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105825CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. See note 2, Foster 2019.

11. Rawls, J.A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971:4853Google Scholar.