Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (3 other versions)A Theory of Justice.John Rawls - unknown
    Since it appeared in 1971, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has become a classic. The author has now revised the original edition to clear up a number of difficulties he and others have found in the original book. Rawls aims to express an essential part of the common core of the democratic tradition--justice as fairness--and to provide an alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought since the nineteenth century. Rawls substitutes the ideal of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3187 citations  
  • Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress - 1995 - Hastings Center Report 25 (4):37.
    Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2267 citations  
  • A Theory of Justice: Original Edition.John Rawls - 2005 - Belknap Press.
    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. This reissue makes the first edition once again available for scholars and serious students of Rawls's work.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3682 citations  
  • Why only common morality?Bryanna Moore - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12):788-789.
    ‘Why Not Common Morality?’ revisits an important and enduring question: is medical ethics distinct from ‘everyday’ ethics? In her paper, Rosamond Rhodes undertakes the ambitious project of answering this question, in addition to clarifying what constitutes a profession, how professions differ from ‘roles’ and how medical ethics relates to medical professionalism. Rhodes aims to challenge the status quo within medical ethics by departing from the views of certain giants within the field. The paper’s central contention is that the ethics of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Medical Ethics: Common or Uncommon Morality?Rosamond Rhodes - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (3):404-420.
    This paper challenges the long-standing and widely accepted view that medical ethics is nothing more than common morality applied to clinical matters. It argues against Tom Beauchamp and James Childress’s four principles; Bernard Gert, K. Danner Clouser and Charles Culver’s ten rules; and Albert Jonsen, Mark Siegler, and William Winslade’s four topics approaches to medical ethics. First, a negative argument shows that common morality does not provide an account of medical ethics and then a positive argument demonstrates why the medical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Common morality and medical ethics: not so different after all.Ruth Macklin - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12):780-781.
    Rhodes seeks to defend her ‘conclusion that everyday ethics and medical ethics [are] incompatible’.1 She challenges ‘views that medical ethics is nothing more than common morality applied to clinical matters’ (Rhodes, p2).1 Beauchamp and Childress explicate the term ‘common morality’ at length.2 Nowhere do they claim that medical ethics is ‘nothing more than common morality applied to clinical matters’. Here is what they do say: “The origin of the norms of the common morality is no different in principle from the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals.Henry S. Richardson, Bernard Gert, Charles M. Culver & K. Danner Clouser - 1999 - Hastings Center Report 29 (5):36.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • Doctors should be morally common: a reply to Rosamond Rhodes.Charles Foster - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12):784-785.
    ​Rosamond Rhodes contends, by reference to seven examples, that medical ethics is distinctly different from non-medical ethics. Each of those examples, on proper examination, illustrates precisely the opposite contention. It is clear not only that medical ethics relies on the same principles as non-medical (and indeed non-professional) ethics, but that it should so rely. A distinctively medical ethics would be dangerous: it would divorce ethical medical decision-making from the patients whom medicine exists to serve.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations