Different beliefs about the nature and justification of bioethics may reflect different assumptions in moral epistemology. Two alternative views (put forward by David Seedhouse and Michael H Kottow) are analysed and some speculative conclusions formed. The foundational questions raised here are by no means settled and deserve further attention.

Chapter 1 Who this book is for and who it is not for1 There are already too many books offering solutions to the problems of the health service. ...

Although most theorists of healthcare rationing argue that rationing, including rationing that takes place in the physician–patient relationship (“bedside rationing”) is unavoidable, some health professionals strongly disagree. In a recent essay, Vegard Bruun Wyller argues that bedside rationing is immoral and thoroughly at odds with a sound view of the physician–patient relationship. We take Wyller to be an articulate exponent of the reluctance to participate in rationing found among some clinicians. Our essay attempts to refute the five crucial premises of (...) his argument yet build on his genuine insights. In our analysis, Wyller’s critique of bedside rationing is instructive both for harbouring some very common misconceptions that must be exposed and refuted, but also for offering important words of caution. In particular, bedside rationing must be performed in ways that do not harm the physician–patient relationship. Read irenically, Wyller’s critique is a reminder of what must not be lost in our painful endeavour to update the ethics of medicine to encompass the unavoidability of rationing. (shrink)

Many bioethicists promote and defend the ‘bedside rationing paradigm’; a pertinent example is the recent publication by Morten Magelssen and colleagues, in which they attack my previous criticism in the field. The present response focuses on what I consider to be the main side-effects of the ‘bedside rationing paradigm’: the ignorance towards intentions and societal roles, the crumbling of political practice, and the fiduciary loss in the physician–patient relationship. Further, I claim that these side effects are related to certain underlying (...) presumptions, such as the conception of fairness as equivalent with distributive justice and the belief in the presence of universally valid, context-independent moral principles. These presumptions are characteristics of modernist ethics; thus, the ‘bedside rationing paradigm’ illustrates some fundamental shortcomings of this moral theory. I argue that an ethics of virtue is better suited to the practice of medicine as well as to the rationing dilemmas. (shrink)