Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:19:15.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Except in Emergencies: AMA Ethics and Physician Autonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Chalmers C. Clark
Chalmers C. Clark
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the College of Staten Island/CityUniversity of New York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I will argue that in emergency cases, physician autonomy is soci-etally constrained under Principle VI of the American Medical Association's (AMA) “Principles of Medical Ethics”1 The issue will be seen to turn on whether the contextual use of “emergency” should be construed narrowly or broadly; I argue for a broadened rendering. Although a societal emergency is not defined here, I recommend that the condition of inner city healthcare presents a paradigm “patient” for such emergency care. I further urge that because societal constraints on physician autonomy are ambiguous and only derived indirectly in the AMA document, further AMA comment on physician autonomy and societal responsibility would advance clarity on the profession's commitment to the public trust.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 440 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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. As published in the American Medical News 1980; 08 1/8:9.Google Scholar

2. In Principle VII, we read that “A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to an improved community.” However, without a constraint on physician autonomy, community participation is on the same footing as societal responsibility.

3. Hilfiker, D. A doctor's view of modern medicine. The New York Times Magazine 1986:Feb 23.Google Scholar

4. Thomson, JJ. A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1971; 1(1).Google Scholar

5. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge; Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971:83.Google Scholar