We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Element examines ethical and conceptual issues about conscientious objection in medicine. Concepts analyzed include conscientious objection, conscientious provision, conscience, moral complicity, and moral integrity. Several ongoing ethical controversies are identified and critically analyzed. One is a disagreement about whether conscientious objection is compatible with physicians' professional obligations. The Element argues that incompatibilists fail to offer a justifiable specification of professional obligations that supports their position. The Element also argues that a challenge for compatibilists who support a reason-giving requirement is to specify justifiable and unambiguous criteria for reviewing objectors' reasons. Arguments for and against requirements to inform and refer patients are critically analyzed, and an alternative, context-dependent requirement is offered. Another subject of controversy is about the justifiability of asymmetry between responses to conscientious objectors and conscientious providers. Typically, only the former receive accommodation. The Element critically examines arguments for asymmetry and maintains that none provides a convincing justification.
This chapter considers some of the legal and professional implications of social media use. These are discussed from two perspectives: firstly, how the law is changing to help ensure harmful and false information is not distributed, and secondly how professionals should responsibly use social media. To illustrate each of these, the chapter focuses on proposed reforms to the UK law and the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC) guidance for doctors. The principles discussed will apply to other jurisdictions and professional groups, but individual professionals should ensure they are familiar with the frameworks within which they practise.
Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.
This chapter focuses on professional implications of journal article publication. It has five major sections, Intuitive Thoughts, Mark and Hulio, Professional obligations, Professional challenges, and Practical suggestions. It starts with a discussion of intuitive thoughts of graduate students and then a discussion of two real-life cases (Mark and Hulio) so that we can see how new authors think and act related to the central question of the chapter. After that, two core concepts, Professional obligations and Professional challenges, are discussed in detail, followed by several practical suggestions. In brief, there are two major implications. Publishing journal articles not only concerns major professional obligations to disseminate knowledge and improve human life but also generates various professional challenges of communicating knowledge scientifically.
Disasters place unprecedented demands on emergency medical services and can test paramedics personal commitment as health care professionals. Despite this challenge, guidelines and codes of ethics are largely silent on the issue, providing little to no guidance on what is expected of paramedics or how they ought to approach their duty to treat in the face of risk. The objective of this research is to explore how paramedics view their duty to treat during disasters.
Methods
The authors employed qualitative methods to gather Australian paramedic perspectives.
Results
Our findings suggest that paramedic decisions around duty to treat will largely depend on individual perception of risk and competing obligations. A code of ethics for paramedics would be useful, but ultimately each paramedic will interpret these suggested guidelines based on individual values and the situational context.
Conclusions
Coming to an understanding of the legal issues involved and the ethical-social expectations in advance of a disaster may assist paramedics to respond willingly and appropriately. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:191–196)
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.