Cargando…

Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis

BACKGROUND: What can the analysis of the evolution of a code of ethics tell us about the dental profession and the association that develops it? The establishment of codes of ethics are foundational events in the social history of a profession. Within these documents it is possible to find statement...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Holden, Alexander C. L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32493373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00485-3
_version_ 1783541635742695424
author Holden, Alexander C. L.
author_facet Holden, Alexander C. L.
author_sort Holden, Alexander C. L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: What can the analysis of the evolution of a code of ethics tell us about the dental profession and the association that develops it? The establishment of codes of ethics are foundational events in the social history of a profession. Within these documents it is possible to find statements of values and culture that serve a variety of purposes. Codes of ethics in dentistry have not frequently presented as the subjects of analyses despite containing rich information about the priorities and anxieties within the profession’s membership at the time that the code was written. MAIN TEXT: This essay uses critical discourse analysis to explore the 2012 and 2018 versions of the Code of Ethics produced by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Dental Association. This method of discourse analysis examines contradictions between the discourses within the codes and how these relate to broader social realties that surround the dental profession in New South Wales. By analysing the 2012 and 2018 codes together, it is possible to understand how the dental profession views its commitments to society as established through the social contract. Through this assessment, it will be demonstrated that both codes suffer due to their failure to consider the public as a key stakeholder in the creation and curation of the Code of Ethics and how this this relates intimately with the social contract between the profession and the public. CONCLUSION: Without the public being the central consideration, both codes amount to declarations of professional privilege and dominance. Although the more recent 2018 Code of Ethics demonstrates insight into the changes in public trust placed in the professions, this analysis shows that that the current code of ethics is still reluctant to recognise and engage with the public as an equal stakeholder in the planning and provision of oral health care and the development of the profession’s values and cultural trajectory.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7268522
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72685222020-06-07 Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis Holden, Alexander C. L. BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: What can the analysis of the evolution of a code of ethics tell us about the dental profession and the association that develops it? The establishment of codes of ethics are foundational events in the social history of a profession. Within these documents it is possible to find statements of values and culture that serve a variety of purposes. Codes of ethics in dentistry have not frequently presented as the subjects of analyses despite containing rich information about the priorities and anxieties within the profession’s membership at the time that the code was written. MAIN TEXT: This essay uses critical discourse analysis to explore the 2012 and 2018 versions of the Code of Ethics produced by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Dental Association. This method of discourse analysis examines contradictions between the discourses within the codes and how these relate to broader social realties that surround the dental profession in New South Wales. By analysing the 2012 and 2018 codes together, it is possible to understand how the dental profession views its commitments to society as established through the social contract. Through this assessment, it will be demonstrated that both codes suffer due to their failure to consider the public as a key stakeholder in the creation and curation of the Code of Ethics and how this this relates intimately with the social contract between the profession and the public. CONCLUSION: Without the public being the central consideration, both codes amount to declarations of professional privilege and dominance. Although the more recent 2018 Code of Ethics demonstrates insight into the changes in public trust placed in the professions, this analysis shows that that the current code of ethics is still reluctant to recognise and engage with the public as an equal stakeholder in the planning and provision of oral health care and the development of the profession’s values and cultural trajectory. BioMed Central 2020-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7268522/ /pubmed/32493373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00485-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Debate
Holden, Alexander C. L.
Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
title Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
title_full Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
title_fullStr Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
title_short Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
title_sort exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32493373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00485-3
work_keys_str_mv AT holdenalexandercl exploringtheevolutionofadentalcodeofethicsacriticaldiscourseanalysis