Professional autonomy is often described as a claim of professionalsthat has to serve primarily their own interests. However, it can also beseen as an element of a professional ideal that can function as astandard for professional, i.e. medical practice. This normativeunderstanding of the medical profession and professional autonomy facesthree threats today. 1) Internal erosion of professional autonomy due toa lack of internal quality control by the medical profession; 2)the increasing upward pressure on health care expenses that calls for ahealth care (...) policy that could imply limitations for the professionalautonomy of physicians; 3) a distorted understanding of theprofession as being based on a formal type of knowledge and relatedtechnology, in which other normative dimensions of medical practice areneglected and which frustrates meaningful communication betweenphysicians and patients. To answer these threats a normative structureanalysis of medical practice is presented, that indicates whichprinciples and norms are constitutive for medical practice. It isconcluded that professional autonomy, normatively understood, should bemaintained to avoid the lure of the technological imperative and toprotect patients against third parties' pressure to undertreatment.However, this professional autonomy can only be maintained if members ofthe profession subject their activities and decisions to a criticalevaluation by other members of the profession and by patients and ifthey continue to critically reflect on the values that regulate today'smedicine. (shrink)

The recent confirmation of the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) by the US Supreme Court has brought to the fore long-standing debates over individual liberty and religious freedom. Advocates of personal liberty are often critical, particularly in the USA, of public health measures which they deem to be overly restrictive of personal choice. In addition to the alleged restrictions of individual freedom of choice when it comes to the question of whether or not (...) to purchase health insurance, opponents to the PPACA also argue that certain requirements of the Act violate the right to freedom of conscience by mandating support for services deemed immoral by religious groups. These issues continue the long running debate surrounding the demands of religious groups for special consideration in the realm of health care provision. In this paper I examine the requirements of the PPACA, and the impacts that religious, and other ideological, exemptions can have on public health, and argue that the exemptions provided for by the PPACA do not in fact impose unreasonable restrictions on religious freedom, but rather concede too much and in so doing endanger public health and some important individual liberties. (shrink)