Anon, to answer your question, I would say that yes, I would definitely prefer that doctors have an ethical and moral code. They are people, first and foremost. I am a journalist by trade, and I have an ethical code that relates to accuracy, integrity and intent. I can tell you for certain that I would not violate those standards at someone else's request, and certainly not because a government told me to. I would rather not practice journalism than make a mockery of it with lies or innuendo.
I think that a doctor who, morally and/or ethically, just cannot perform an abortion is allowed that choice. However, I also think that that doctor does need to provide information to their patient. "First, do no harm" has several arms, and I think a viable argument could be made that sending a patient away without thorough information or a referral would qualify as harm in some instances.
I also believe that doctors must work within the law, as must journalists. If something is legal -- for instance, the morning-after pill for a rape victim -- than a patient has a right to learn about it and, with a doctor, choose that treatment.
If we get the argument away from the more difficult and emotionally charged cases, it seems more logical. A plastic surgeon who turns down surgery on a patient who seems addicted to plastic surgery would be considered ethical. If that plastic surgeon felt that the procedure would harm the patient, must he or she refer the patient to another doctor who will do it?
There is another force at work here, I'm sure, and that's the constant threat of malpractice. I wonder how many ethical decisions are affected by someone's fear of being sued if the outcome isn't what the patient had hoped, or if they later regret doing it. That's cynical, I know, but we hear so much about how malpractice insurance premiums are through the roof that I can't imagine there aren't doctors who, when making decisions about any "elective" procedure, don't take that into account.
Comment Reply
Anon, to answer your question, I would say that yes, I would definitely prefer that doctors have an ethical and moral code. They are people, first and foremost. I am a journalist by trade, and I have an ethical code that relates to accuracy, integrity and intent. I can tell you for certain that I would not violate those standards at someone else's request, and certainly not because a government told me to. I would rather not practice journalism than make a mockery of it with lies or innuendo.
I think that a doctor who, morally and/or ethically, just cannot perform an abortion is allowed that choice. However, I also think that that doctor does need to provide information to their patient. "First, do no harm" has several arms, and I think a viable argument could be made that sending a patient away without thorough information or a referral would qualify as harm in some instances.
I also believe that doctors must work within the law, as must journalists. If something is legal -- for instance, the morning-after pill for a rape victim -- than a patient has a right to learn about it and, with a doctor, choose that treatment.
If we get the argument away from the more difficult and emotionally charged cases, it seems more logical. A plastic surgeon who turns down surgery on a patient who seems addicted to plastic surgery would be considered ethical. If that plastic surgeon felt that the procedure would harm the patient, must he or she refer the patient to another doctor who will do it?
There is another force at work here, I'm sure, and that's the constant threat of malpractice. I wonder how many ethical decisions are affected by someone's fear of being sued if the outcome isn't what the patient had hoped, or if they later regret doing it. That's cynical, I know, but we hear so much about how malpractice insurance premiums are through the roof that I can't imagine there aren't doctors who, when making decisions about any "elective" procedure, don't take that into account.
December 23, 2008 - 9:24amThis Comment
Reply