Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:01:40.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: In Search of Medical Ethics and Its Foundation with Rosamond Rhodes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2020

TUIJA TAKALA  and
MATTI HÄYRY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In her thorough and thoughtful contribution to the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics titled “Medical Ethics: Common or Uncommon Morality” Rosamond Rhodes argues that contrary to American mainstream bioethics, medical ethics is not, and should not be, based on common morality, but rather, that the medical profession requires its own distinctive morality.1 She goes on to list sixteen duties that, according to her, form the core of medical ethics proper.

Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 429 - 436
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgement: The authors thank the Academy of Finland (project SA 307467 “Bioeconomy and Justice”) and the Finnish Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (projects “The role of Justice in Decision Making Concerning Bioeconomy” and “A Just Management Model for Systemic and Sustainable Shift Towards Bioeconomy”) for their financial support.

References

Notes

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

2. Rhodes, R. Genetic links, family ties and social bonds: Rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1998;23:10–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3. Takala, T, Häyry, M. Genetic ignorance, moral obligations and social duties. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2000;25:107–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Gordon J-S. Bioethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, no date; available at https://www.iep.utm.edu/bioethic/ (last accessed 15 Dec 2019).

5. Häyry M. Ethics and cloning. British Medical Bulletin 2018;128:15–21; available at https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/128/1/15/5094025 (last accessed 15 Dec 2019).

6. Ramsey, P. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1970Google Scholar.

7. Fletcher, J. The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive Roulette. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press; 1974.Google Scholar

8. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research; available at https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html (last accessed 15 Dec 2019).

9. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1979.Google Scholar

10. Ashcroft, R, Draper, H, McMillan, J, eds. Principles of Health Care Ethics, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar

11. Takala, T. What is wrong with global bioethics? On the limitations of the four principles approach. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2001;10(1):72–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12. Schwetz, BA. Beauchamp, Tom. Oral History of the Belmont Report and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 2004Google Scholar Sept 22; available at https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/luminaries-lecture-series/belmont-report-25th-anniversary-interview-tbeacham/index.html (last accessed 15 Dec 2019).

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

14. Gert, B, Culver, CM, Clouser, KD. Bioethics: A Systematic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Jonsen, AR, Toulmin, SE. The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1988.Google Scholar

16. Jonsen, A. The Birth of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar

17. Holmes, HB, Purdy, LM. Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1992Google Scholar.

18. Sherwin, S. No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 1992.Google Scholar

19. Wolf, SM, ed. Feminism & Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar

20. Herissone-Kelly, P. The principlist approach to bioethics and its stormy journey overseas. In: Häyry, M, Takala, T, eds. Scratching the Surface of Bioethics. Amsterdam and New York, NY: Rodopi; 2003.Google Scholar

21. Herissone-Kelly, P. Determining the common morality’s norms in the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 2011;37:584–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

22. Häyry, M. Rationality and the Genetic Challenge: Making People Better? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Häyry, M. Doctrines and dimensions of justice: Their historical backgrounds and ideological underpinnings. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018;27(2):188–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Häyry, M. Justice and the possibility of good moralism in bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(2):236–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

25. Takala, T, Häyry, M. Research ethics and justice: The case of Finland. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28:551–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

26. Takala, T. Justice for all? – The Scandinavian approach. In: Rhodes, R, Battin, M, Silvers, A, eds. Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2002:183–90.Google Scholar

27. Häyry, M. European values in bioethics: Why, what, and how to be used? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2003;24:199–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

28. Häyry, M, Takala, T. American principles, European values, and the mezzanine rules of ethical genetic data banking. In: Häyry, M, Chadwick, R, Árnason, V, Árnason, G, eds. The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases: European Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:14–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 407.

30. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 408.

31. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 416.

32. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 406.

33. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 405.

34. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 415.

35. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 413–14.

36. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 413. Italics added.

37. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 414.

38. See note 1, Rhodes 2020, at 418.

39. Rhodes, R. The Trusted Doctor: Medical Ethics and Professionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020, forthcomingCrossRefGoogle Scholar.