For this second edition, the editors have returned to Austin's original lecture notes, amending the printed text where it seemed necessary.

Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition.

Written in an outstandingly clear and lively style, this 1969 book provokes its readers to rethink issues they may have regarded as long since settled.

The threat of bioterrorism, the emergence of the SARS epidemic, and a recent focus on professionalism among physicians, present a timely opportunity for a review of, and renewed commitment to, physician obligations to care for patients during epidemics. The professional obligation to care for contagious patients is part of a larger "duty to treat," which historically became accepted when 1) a risk of nosocomial infection was perceived, 2) an organized professional body existed to promote the duty, and 3) the public (...) came to rely on the duty. Physicians' responses to epidemics from the Hippocratic era to the present suggests an evolving acceptance of the professional duty to treat contagious patients, reaching a long-held peak between 1847 and the1950's. There has been some professional retrenchment against this duty to treat in the last 40 years but, we argue, conditions favoring acceptance of the duty are met today. A renewed embrace of physicians' duty to treat patients during epidemics, despite conditions of personal risk, might strengthen medicine's relationship with society, improve society's capacity to prepare for threats such as bioterrorism and new epidemics, and contribute to the development of a more robust and meaningful medical professionalism. (shrink)

By entering the medical profession, physicians have consented to accept a standard level of risk of infection. In most instances, the risk of contracting HIV does not exceed this level.

In this paper I will argue that in emergency cases, physician autonomy is soci-etally constrained under Principle VI of the American Medical Association's “Principles of Medical Ethics”1 The issue will be seen to turn on whether the contextual use of “emergency” should be construed narrowly or broadly; I argue for a broadened rendering. Although a societal emergency is not defined here, I recommend that the condition of inner city healthcare presents a paradigm “patient” for such emergency care. I further urge (...) that because societal constraints on physician autonomy are ambiguous and only derived indirectly in the AMA document, further AMA comment on physician autonomy and societal responsibility would advance clarity on the profession's commitment to the public trust. (shrink)