VIRTUE ETHICS REVISITED

Most physicians, whether they treat children or adults, would not see themselves as having much in common with philosophers. Philosophy is often thought to deal with the abstract, ethereal, or abstruse, whereas medicine is scientific, evidence-based, and goal-directed. Nevertheless, when physicians are questioned, they readily accept that some of the attributes of philosophers are similar to their own. A physician is a seeker of knowledge, one who pursues the application of the right treatment to the right diagnosis for the good of the patient. Doctors tend to be most fulfilled when they have a deep appreciation of both their patients and their profession, the personal interaction as well as the intellectual stimulation of the medical profession. Ultimately, this makes a physician a seeker of truth and wisdom, which is not a bad definition for a philosopher. Although some might shy away from this connection, thinking that to discuss their philosophy of medicine or their philosophy of life would seem somewhat pretentious, most physicians would readily admit to wanting to be a “good” doctor. But what does it mean to be a good doctor? What does it mean to do good in the medical sense? When prodded, we could produce a list of traits that would characterize a good physician. Such lists have been produced before; such traits have been described. The term most often used in these descriptions is “virtue.”

Virtue has often been defined as the good character traits of such persons, that is, their disposition to habitually do the things that are right and good. Ultimately, the character of one performing an action is central to the good choice of action.