A philosophical analysis of how physician actions and treatment goals are defined and interpreted and how understanding this process can affect the success of the clinical encounter.
Arguments are examined for and against the ethics of allowing U.S. armed services to attempt to recruit financially vulnerable students on medical school campuses.
Physicians have an obligation to consider a patient’s quality of life when making treatment decisions and should consider giving patients the options of withholding or withdrawing aggressive treatment if that treatment will not restore the kind of life the patient finds meaningful.
Physicians’ ethical obligations to disclose conflicts of interest to patients and to obtain their informed consent for treatment are particularly critical when proposed treatments are experimental.
Parents’ right to choose the culture of their children and a child’s right to an open future outweigh the right of the Deaf to perpetuate their culture by disallowing government funding of cochlear implant research to restore hearing.
The ongoing anthrax vaccination case, Doe v Rumsfeld, tests whether the military can require participation in and punish refusal of a vaccination program while waiving informed consent.
The military medical ethics curriculum is outlined by the director of medical ethics programs at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
The physician's duty to provide emergency treatment to combatants on both sides in an armed conflict persists, even in the context of today's asymmetrical warfare where not everyone plays by the rules.
The physician's duty to provide emergency treatment to combatants on both sides in an armed conflict persists, even in the context of today's asymmetrical warfare where not everyone plays by the rules.