Cargando…
In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics
BACKGROUND: Since some form of dual clinical/public health practice is desirable, this paper explains why their ethics should be combined to influence medical practice and explores a way to achieve that. MAIN TEXT: In our attempt to merge clinical and public health ethics, we empirically compared th...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723753/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05887-y |
_version_ | 1783620408811978752 |
---|---|
author | Unger, Jean-Pierre Morales, Ingrid De Paepe, Pierre Roland, Michel |
author_facet | Unger, Jean-Pierre Morales, Ingrid De Paepe, Pierre Roland, Michel |
author_sort | Unger, Jean-Pierre |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Since some form of dual clinical/public health practice is desirable, this paper explains why their ethics should be combined to influence medical practice and explores a way to achieve that. MAIN TEXT: In our attempt to merge clinical and public health ethics, we empirically compared the individual and collective health consequences of two illustrative lists of medical and public health ethical tenets and discussed their reciprocal relevance to praxis. : fleshing out three similar principles, namely, beneficence, medical and public health engagement in favour of health equality, and community and individual participation; and adopting three stand-alone principles, namely, professional excellence, non-maleficence, and scientific excellence. Finally, we suggest that eco-biopsychosocial and patient-centred care delivery and dual clinical/public health practice should become a doctor’s moral obligation. We propose to call ethics based on non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice – the values upon which, according to Pellegrino and Thomasma, the others are grounded and that physicians and ethicists use to resolve ethical dilemmas – “neo-Hippocratic”. The neo- prefix is justified by the adjunct of a distributive dimension (justice) to traditional Hippocratic ethics. CONCLUSION: Ethical codes ought to be constantly updated. The above values do not escape the rule. We have formulated them to feed discussions in health services and medical associations. Not only are these values fragmentary and in progress, but they have no universal ambition: they are applicable to the dilemmas of modern Western medicine only, not Ayurvedic or Shamanic medicine, because each professional culture has its own philosophical rationale. Efforts to combine clinical and public health ethics whilst resolving medical dilemmas can reasonably be expected to call upon the physician’s professional identity because they are intellectual challenges to be associated with case management. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7723753 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77237532020-12-09 In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics Unger, Jean-Pierre Morales, Ingrid De Paepe, Pierre Roland, Michel BMC Health Serv Res Commentary BACKGROUND: Since some form of dual clinical/public health practice is desirable, this paper explains why their ethics should be combined to influence medical practice and explores a way to achieve that. MAIN TEXT: In our attempt to merge clinical and public health ethics, we empirically compared the individual and collective health consequences of two illustrative lists of medical and public health ethical tenets and discussed their reciprocal relevance to praxis. : fleshing out three similar principles, namely, beneficence, medical and public health engagement in favour of health equality, and community and individual participation; and adopting three stand-alone principles, namely, professional excellence, non-maleficence, and scientific excellence. Finally, we suggest that eco-biopsychosocial and patient-centred care delivery and dual clinical/public health practice should become a doctor’s moral obligation. We propose to call ethics based on non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice – the values upon which, according to Pellegrino and Thomasma, the others are grounded and that physicians and ethicists use to resolve ethical dilemmas – “neo-Hippocratic”. The neo- prefix is justified by the adjunct of a distributive dimension (justice) to traditional Hippocratic ethics. CONCLUSION: Ethical codes ought to be constantly updated. The above values do not escape the rule. We have formulated them to feed discussions in health services and medical associations. Not only are these values fragmentary and in progress, but they have no universal ambition: they are applicable to the dilemmas of modern Western medicine only, not Ayurvedic or Shamanic medicine, because each professional culture has its own philosophical rationale. Efforts to combine clinical and public health ethics whilst resolving medical dilemmas can reasonably be expected to call upon the physician’s professional identity because they are intellectual challenges to be associated with case management. BioMed Central 2020-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7723753/ /pubmed/33292217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05887-y 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 | Commentary Unger, Jean-Pierre Morales, Ingrid De Paepe, Pierre Roland, Michel In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
title | In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
title_full | In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
title_fullStr | In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
title_full_unstemmed | In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
title_short | In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
title_sort | in defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723753/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05887-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ungerjeanpierre indefenceofasinglebodyofclinicalandpublichealthmedicalethics AT moralesingrid indefenceofasinglebodyofclinicalandpublichealthmedicalethics AT depaepepierre indefenceofasinglebodyofclinicalandpublichealthmedicalethics AT rolandmichel indefenceofasinglebodyofclinicalandpublichealthmedicalethics |