Roles, professions and ethics: a tale of doctors, patients, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers

In her paper ‘Why Not Common Morality?’, Rosamond Rhodes argues (1) that medical ethics cannot and should not be derived from common morality and (2) that medical ethics should instead be conceptualised as professional ethics and the content left to the medical profession to develop and decide.1 I h...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Holm, S. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2019
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2019, Volume: 45, Issue: 12, Pages: 782-783
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816161357
003 DE-627
005 20230428063525.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2019-105826  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816161357 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816161357 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Holm, S.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Roles, professions and ethics: a tale of doctors, patients, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers 
264 1 |c 2019 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In her paper ‘Why Not Common Morality?’, Rosamond Rhodes argues (1) that medical ethics cannot and should not be derived from common morality and (2) that medical ethics should instead be conceptualised as professional ethics and the content left to the medical profession to develop and decide.1 I have considerable sympathy with the first claim and have myself argued along somewhat similar lines.2 I am, however, very sceptical about elements of the second claim and will briefly explain why (see my 2011 paper in a somewhat obscure journal for a more in-depth argument3).The first part of Rhodes’s constructive argument is to show that practising medicine is not only a role, it is something more. Medicine is a profession and as such its members have to internalise and personally endorse a specific ethics. Rhodes is careful to state that more work is needed to complete the justification for this claim, but the arguments she does provide are strangely ahistorical. First, it is not that long ago that what we now conceive of as one profession was actually two very strictly separated professions, that is, university educated physicians and apprenticed surgeons. Can we really be certain that medicine is now one, unified profession1? Second the way butchers, bakers and candlestick makers are traduced is also oddly ahistorical. It is only fairly recently in many countries that anyone can butcher meat, bake bread or make candlesticks and legally sell the product to the public. Historically these trades have in Europe not been mere roles, but … 
601 |a Profess 
601 |a Patient 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 45(2019), 12, Seite 782-783  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:45  |g year:2019  |g number:12  |g pages:782-783 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105826  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/45/12/782.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185615302 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816161357 
LOK |0 005 20220908053741 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#F66CBDA82053A95D52C9535DF9450B9AE5644DB3 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw