Supererogatory acts are considered by some to be part of medicine, whereas others accept supererogation to be a gratuitous virtue, to be extolled when present, but not to be demanded. The present paper sides with those contending that medicine is duty-bound to benefit patients and that supererogation/altruism must per definition remain outside and beyond any role-description of the profession. Medical ethics should be bound by rational ethics and steer away from separatist views which grant exclusive privileges but also create excessive (...) demands, way beyond what physicians perform or are willing and able to offer. (shrink)

In the light of increasing public mistrust, there is an urgent need to clarify the moral status of the medical profession and of the relationship of the clinician to his/her patients. In addressing this question, I first establish the coherence, within moral philosophy generally, of the concept of supererogation . I adopt the notion of an act of “unqualified” supererogation as one that is non-derivatively good, praiseworthy, and freely undertaken for others' benefit at the risk of some cost to the (...) agent. I then argue that committing oneself to the profession of clinical medicine is an act of this kind. This is the case, not because the aim of medicine is to help patients, but because of the open ended commitment of time and the vulnerability to the consequences of failure that the clinician must accept. (shrink)

Supererogation can be distinguished from altruism, in that the former is located in the category of duty but exceeds the strict requirements of duty, whereas altruism belongs to a different moral category from duty. It follows that doctors do not act altruistically in their professional roles. Individual doctors may sometimes show supererogation, but supererogation is not a necessary feature of the medical profession. The aim of medicine is to act in the best interests of patients. This aim involves neither supererogation (...) nor even the moral quality of beneficence. It is simply a job description. Morality enters medicine through the quality of the individual doctor's work, not by the definition of that work. (shrink)

IN DEFENCE OF MEDICAL COMMITMENT CEREMONIESI confess to an overwhelming astonishment on first reading my friend Bob Veatch's attack on white coat ceremonies. Surely, I had thought, everyone who considered the issue would want doctors to commit themselves to the basic moral goals of medicine and especially that ancient Hippocratic goal of working to benefit the health of their/our patients, and only risking or doing harm with the intention and likely outcome of producing their net health benefit? Surely, too, it's (...) a good idea for the new medical student—or at least the new clinical student about to encounter and interact with real patients—to commit himself or herself to those goals? But as usual Professor Veatch is an incisive and thought-provoking critic and his three criticisms require careful reflection. Those criticisms were: that the oaths or affirmations were not legitimate, especially because the students were unlikely to understand them or their implications; that it is not clear which of the competing candidate oaths or commitments should be chosen and why, and that the “bonding” aspect of the ceremony in which the new student is welcomed as a student member of the medical profession is undesirable in so far as it tends to remove medical students from their own cultures and place them instead in a medical culture “increasingly isolated from the people and cultures from which they have come”.Too ill informed, too young, too coerced to commit?As for the first criticism, I suppose a sensible development of the white coat ceremony would be to send each medical school applicant a copy of the commitment that he or she would be expected to make on joining the medical school so that he or she can study, reflect on, and discuss it with family and friends. On the other hand if the white coat commitment I saw is typical of others, such …. (shrink)