The Journal of medicine and philosophy
-
Case Reports
Specified principlism: what is it, and does it really resolve cases better than casuistry?
Principlism has been advocated as an approach to resolving concrete cases and issues in bioethics, but critics have pointed out that a main problem for principlism is its lack of a method for assigning priorities to conflicting ethical principles. A version of principlism referred to as 'specified principlism' has been put forward in an attempt to overcome this problem. ⋯ Proponents of specified principlism have attempted to defend it by arguing that it is superior to casuistry, but it can be shown that their arguments are faulty. Because of these reasons, specified principlism should not be considered a leading contender in the search for methods of making justifiable decisions in clinical cases.
-
In September 1998 the Bundesärztekammer, i.e., the German Medical Association, published new principles concerning terminal medical care. Even before publication, a draft of these principles was very controversial, and prompted intense public debate in the mass media. Despite some of the critics' suspicions that the principles prepared the way for liberalization of active euthanasia, euthanasia is unequivocally rejected in the principles. ⋯ Patients' autonomy is strengthened by explicitly welcoming advance directives as a means to ascertain patients' wills. The principles mark some changes compared to earlier documents. They deserve careful analysis and should be considered in the international debate on issues concerning the end of life.
-
Clinical ethics, like bioethics more generally, until recently has tended to focus on the present and future, with little attention to the history of moral thought about health care that preceded bioethics. As a consequence, clinical ethics and bioethics lack maturity as fields of the humanities. The papers in this year's clinical ethics issue of the Journal put contemporary clinical ethics in critical dialogue with the past, making the former accountable to the latter. The six papers in this issue of the Journal are briefly described, with an emphasis on how they contribute to the maturation of clinical ethics as a field of the humanities.
-
The aims of this paper are threefold. The first aim is to provide a critique of the reform proposal of the Harvard School of Public Health for Hong Kong's health care system through privatization of the public sector services. The second aim is to argue for the duty of society to guarantee every member equal access to a basic level of health care based on the values of equity, care and free choice. The third aim is to explore some suggestions about delivery structures and financial arrangements of a dual sector health care system which will better enable society to provide a basic level of health care that is sustainable and affordable, while being at the same time consistent with the values of care, equity and free choice.
-
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, emerging advances in the biomedical sciences raised insufficiently noticed ethical issues, prompting science reporters to serve as a sort of Early Warning System. As awareness of bioethical issues increased rapidly everywhere, and bioethics itself arrived as a recognized discipline, the need for this early-warning press role has clearly diminished. A secondary but important role for the science journalist is that of investigative reporter/whistleblower, as in the Tuskegee syphilis trials and the government's secret plutonium experiments. Because the general public gets most of its information from the popular media, ways are suggested for journalists and bioethicists to work together.