PubMed · 16179322
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Christopher Meyers. Codifying but not professionalizing bioethics.. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160500245550
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The essence of the medical profession resides in the medical act, whereupon a sick human being meets another with the power to heal him or her. The source of this power has evolved from the divinity itself through magic to science or acquired knowledge. This power implies acknowledgement of values that are inherent to the profession as well as responsibility toward one's own conscience and toward society, elements considered constitutive of what we now call professionalism. From antiquity these principles have evolved into behavioral codes containing variable components according to the different ages and cultures, but also permenent core values such as respect for life, altruism, and honesty, among others. Scientific and technological advances have magnified medical power but at the same time they have required that the philosophical and ethical principles that ought to inform professional practice be made explicit. This happens at a time when certitudes are questioned or abandoned, relativism and secularism pervade culture, and traditional medical values are challenged. Therefore, consensus attainment appears for some as the only legitimation of the ethics of professional medical acts, while for others the ancestral principles and values of medicine have permanent validity as objective goods based on the dignity of the human person.
BACKGROUND: As a number of commentators have noted, SARS exposed the vulnerabilities of our health care systems and governance structures. Health care professionals (HCPs) and hospital systems that bore the brunt of the SARS outbreak continue to struggle with the aftermath of the crisis. Indeed, HCPs - both in clinical care and in public health - were severely tested by SARS. Unprecedented demands were placed on their skills and expertise, and their personal commitment to their profession was severely tried. Many were exposed to serious risk of morbidity and mortality, as evidenced by the World Health Organization figures showing that approximately 30% of reported cases were among HCPs, some of whom died from the infection. Despite this challenge, professional codes of ethics are silent on the issue of duty to care during communicable disease outbreaks, thus providing no guidance on what is expected of HCPs or how they ought to approach their duty to care in the face of risk. DISCUSSION: In the aftermath of SARS and with the spectre of a pandemic avian influenza, it is imperative that we (re)consider the obligations of HCPs for patients with severe infectious diseases, particularly diseases that pose risks to those providing care. It is of pressing importance that organizations representing HCPs give clear indication of what standard of care is expected of their members in the event of a pandemic. In this paper, we address the issue of special obligations of HCPs during an infectious disease outbreak. We argue that there is a pressing need to clarify the rights and responsibilities of HCPs in the current context of pandemic flu preparedness, and that these rights and responsibilities ought to be codified in professional codes of ethics. Finally, we present a brief historical accounting of the treatment of the duty to care in professional health care codes of ethics. SUMMARY: An honest and critical examination of the role of HCPs during communicable disease outbreaks is needed in order to provide guidelines regarding professional rights and responsibilities, as well as ethical duties and obligations. With this paper, we hope to open the social dialogue and advance the public debate on this increasingly urgent issue.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.