IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v17y1983i16p1191-1197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Processes in the formulation and legitimisation of professional ethics in a changing world

Author

Listed:
  • Bassford, H. A.

Abstract

Within any given profession two sorts of moral problems arise: 'general' problems which are solvable by universal moral considerations, and 'role-specific' problems, which are generated or solved by norms unique to the profession. It is role-specific norms which are theoretically significant to professional ethics. This essay begins an investigation of role-specific norms for medical ethics, concentrating in particular upon the traditional claim that a physician's primary duty is the restoration and preservation of a patient's health. This norm is derivable from the concept of medicine itself, and can be defended against contemporary sceptical and relativistic attacks designed to show it has no useful content. The medical profession has been attacked recently on the ground that the 'patient-health' norm conflicts with more fundamental general moral principles, especially that of personal autonomy. This criticism is justified with respect to the interpretation of the patient-health norm which has often been given by the medical profession. A more careful investigation of both the empirical requirements of successful treatment and the concept of health itself shows that the theoretical conflict is largely resolvable. This implies that the traditional basic medical norm is morally appropriate.

Suggested Citation

  • Bassford, H. A., 1983. "Processes in the formulation and legitimisation of professional ethics in a changing world," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(16), pages 1191-1197, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:16:p:1191-1197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(83)90011-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:16:p:1191-1197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.