The moral authority for professional ethics in medicine customarily rests in some source external to medicine, i.e., a pre-existing philosophical system of ethics or some form of social construction, like consensus or dialogue. Rather, internal morality is grounded in the phenomena of medicine, i.e., in the nature of the clinical encounter between physician and patient. From this, a philosophy of medicine is derived which gives moral force to the duties, virtues and obligations of physicians qua physicians. Similarly, an ethic specific (...) to the other healing professions, law, teaching or ministry, can be derived from the specific ends to telos of each of these professions, which like medicine, are focused on a special type of human relationship. (shrink)

Previous edition, 1st, published in 1971.

Primary care givers commonly interpret shortages of time with patients as placing them between a rock and a hard place in respect of their professional obligations to fairly distribute available healthcare resources (justice) and to offer a quality of attentive care appropriate to patients’ states of personal vulnerability (compassion). The author argues that this a false and highly misleading conceptualisation of the basic structure of the ethical dilemma raised by the rationing of time in clinical settings. Drawing on an analysis (...) of the Aristotelian virtue of nemesis, or “the sense of justice”, it is argued that, far from being a moral orientation distinct from justice, compassion is a justice response insofar as it is conceptualised as a rational, appropriate response to others’ adversity. The author then proceeds to point out that the perspective on justice and compassion as attributes of healthcare professionalism suggests a novel critical viewpoint on the ethics of managed forms of clinical rationing and the “scarcity paradigm” they engender: clinical conditions where primary care givers’ time is intentionally rendered a commodity in chronically short supply run a deficit of justice, because they fail to make adequate accommodations for the provision of the quality of care human beings deserve in situations of illness and injury, and when they are dying. (shrink)

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)