|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Barrister,
Formerly Consultant Physician and Anaesthetist, Royal Brompton
Hospital, London, UK
Correspondence to: Dr M Branthwaite, 51 Millbank Court, 24 John Islip Street, London SW1P 4LG, UK
Accepted for publication 14 September 2000
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
| |
Article |
|---|
It is customary
albeit perhaps simplistic
to identify four
ethical principles as the basis for good medical
practice.1 These are beneficence, non-maleficence, respect
for autonomy, and justice, primarily distributive justice. The
challenge for the practising clinician is to determine a proper course
of action when these principles conflict, particularly when the
individual, social, or financial consequences of new and perhaps
promising treatments are known incompletely. Decisions taken in good
faith are now often subject to public comment or criticism, and the National Health Service and other legislation add further constraints by introducing new rights or prescriptive guidelines without
necessarily identifying the resources to fulfil these obligations. Many
of these concerns have been part and parcel of medical practice for centuries, but it is only recently that the aura of the always wise and
caring practitioner has been challenged by an increasingly assertive
and vociferous public, ready to seek legal redress
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A Bush, J C de Jongste, K-H Carlsen, and H Cokugras Ultrastructural examination of bronchial specimens from children with moderate asthma Thorax, February 1, 2003; 58(2): 187 - 187. [Full Text] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |