Linked Life Data

10517301

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10517301

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1999-11-30
pubmed:abstractText
Health care systems are widely criticized for limiting doctors' roles as patient-advocates. Yet unrestricted advocacy can be unfairly partial, costly, and prejudicial. This essay considers three solutions to the problem of how to reconcile the demands of a just health care system for all patients, with the value of advocacy for some. Two views are considered and rejected, one supporting unlimited advocacy and another defending strict impartiality. A third view suggested by Hume's moral theory seeks to square the moral demands of professional advocacy and just health care systems. A moral basis for limited advocacy exists when it can be justified from a general or moral vantage. Consequently, ethical aspects of professionalism are not necessarily on a collision course with health care systems incorporating managed care. This solution is compatible with goals regarding the importance of humanistic education and professionalism to build patients' trust.
pubmed:keyword
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
E
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Aug
pubmed:issn
0360-5310
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
24
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
396-410
pubmed:dateRevised
2004-11-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1999
pubmed:articleTitle
Help from Hume reconciling professionalism and managed care.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Medical Humanities, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Biography, Historical Article