Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:13:30.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Beyond Common or Uncommon Morality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2020

LESLIE FRANCIS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In “Medical Ethics: Common or Uncommon Morality,”1 Rosamond Rhodes defends a specialist view of medical ethics, specifically the ethics of physicians. Rhodes’s account is specifically about the ethics of medical professionals, rooted in what these professionals do. It would seem to follow that other healthcare professions might be subject to ethical standards that differ from those applicable to physicians, rooted in what these other professions do, but I leave this point aside for purposes of this commentary. Rhodes’s view includes both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis is that precepts in medical ethics—understood as the ethics of physicians—cannot be derived from principles of common morality. The positive thesis is two-fold: that precepts in medical ethics must be derived from an account of the special nature of what physicians do, and that this account is to be understood through an overlapping consensus of rational and reasonable medical professionals. While I agree emphatically with, and have learned a great deal from, Rhodes’s defense of the negative thesis, I disagree with both claims in Rhodes’s positive thesis, for reasons I will now explain after a brief observation about the negative thesis.

Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 426 - 428
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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

2. Baier, A. Trust and antitrust. Ethics 1986;96(2):231–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See note 1, Rhodes 2020.

4. Dickens, BM. Legal limits of AIDS confidentiality. JAMA 1988;259(23):3449–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Sugarman, J. Bioethical challenges with HIV treatment as prevention. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2014;59(Suppl 1):S32–S34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Haire, B, Kaldor, J. HIV transmission law in the age of treatment-as-prevention. Journal of Medical Ethics 2015;41(12):982–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Haire, B, Kaldor, JM. Ethics of ARV based prevention: Treatment-as-prevention and PrEP. Developing World Bioethics 2013;13(2):63–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Schuklenk, U. The trouble with public health: HIV/AIDS in Canada as a case in point. Bioethics 2018;32(2):82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Gonsalves, GS, Copple, JT, Johnson, T, Paltiel, AD, Warren, JL. Bayesian adaptive algorithms for locating HIV mobile testing services. BMC Medicine 2018;16(1):155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Gonsalves, GS, Crawford, FW. Dynamics of the HIV outbreak and response in Scott County, IN, USA, 2011-15: A modelling study. Lancet HIV 2018;5(10):e569–e577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Bogart, LM, Ransome, Y, Allen, W, Higgins-Biddle, M, Ojikutu, BO. HIV-related medical mistrust, HIV testing, and HIV risk in the National Survey on HIV in the Black Community. Behavioral Medicine 2019;45(2):134–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed