I think this is a timely subject to discuss but it originally sprung out of the “Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill” thread. I posed the argument: “Ethics requires doctors/clinicians to follow the law.” I think that’s pretty obvious and uncontroversial.
A good example of this is what’s going on now with many doctors writing scrips for chloroquine, etc/azithromycin for themselves/family/friends/ patients -not because they have an autoimmune disorder or a positive Covid-19 diagnosis, but “just in case.” This has caused a shortage. I think that’s unethical and now many States have started clamping down on this with new emergency rules prohibiting the practice. Doctors/Pharmacists should comply with the law even if they don’t agree with it.
The counter argument has been, in a nutshell, that a doctor can “override” laws that they find unethical/harmful and that doctors should use individual clinical judgement to make ethical decisions even if it’s against a law/ethical rule they see as unjust. Others can correct me if I’ve misstated the basic position.
Abortion is cited as an example: if abortion was made illegal today, it would be ethical for docs to keep on doing them because the law itself would be unethical.
I think doctors overriding the law is dangerous and that ethics requires them to comply with the law, even against their own clinical judgement. In the case of a total abortion ban, they would be putting patients and their licenses at risk: patients would have a harder time getting safe abortions and treatments for complications that arise; doctors would be less likely to send patients with complications to hospitals because they don’t want to risk their licenses. If they lose their licenses, we have a doctor shortage problem. I am NOT arguing that such a law is good. I am arguing that the medical community’s duty is to follow the law and fight/lobby against unjust laws that affect patient care.
So what say you? What is a clinician’s duty in regards to ethics and the law.
A good example of this is what’s going on now with many doctors writing scrips for chloroquine, etc/azithromycin for themselves/family/friends/ patients -not because they have an autoimmune disorder or a positive Covid-19 diagnosis, but “just in case.” This has caused a shortage. I think that’s unethical and now many States have started clamping down on this with new emergency rules prohibiting the practice. Doctors/Pharmacists should comply with the law even if they don’t agree with it.
The counter argument has been, in a nutshell, that a doctor can “override” laws that they find unethical/harmful and that doctors should use individual clinical judgement to make ethical decisions even if it’s against a law/ethical rule they see as unjust. Others can correct me if I’ve misstated the basic position.
Abortion is cited as an example: if abortion was made illegal today, it would be ethical for docs to keep on doing them because the law itself would be unethical.
I think doctors overriding the law is dangerous and that ethics requires them to comply with the law, even against their own clinical judgement. In the case of a total abortion ban, they would be putting patients and their licenses at risk: patients would have a harder time getting safe abortions and treatments for complications that arise; doctors would be less likely to send patients with complications to hospitals because they don’t want to risk their licenses. If they lose their licenses, we have a doctor shortage problem. I am NOT arguing that such a law is good. I am arguing that the medical community’s duty is to follow the law and fight/lobby against unjust laws that affect patient care.
So what say you? What is a clinician’s duty in regards to ethics and the law.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2WWs1hg
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire