Literature DB >> 10226916

Should doctors intentionally do less than the best?

J Savulescu1.   

Abstract

The papers of Burley and Harris, and Draper and Chadwick, in this issue, raise a problem: what should doctors do when patients request an option which is not the best available? This commentary argues that doctors have a duty to offer that option which will result in the individual affected by that choice enjoying the highest level of wellbeing. Doctors can deviate from this duty and submaximise--bring about an outcome that is less than the best--only if there are good reasons to do so. The desire to have a child which is genetically related provides little, if any, reason to submaximise. The implication for cloning, preimplantation diagnosis and embryo transfer is that doctors should only produce a clone or transfer embryos expected to enjoy a level of wellbeing which is less than that enjoyed by other children the couple could have, if there is a good reason to employ that technology. This paper sketches what might constitute a good reason to submaximise.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10226916      PMCID: PMC479195          DOI: 10.1136/jme.25.2.121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  6 in total

1.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the 'new' eugenics.

Authors:  D S King
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Can we learn from eugenics?

Authors:  D Wikler
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Beyond the disorder: one parent's reflection on genetic counselling.

Authors:  R McGowan
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Beware! Preimplantation genetic diagnosis may solve some old problems but it also raises new ones.

Authors:  H Draper; R Chadwick
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Human cloning and child welfare.

Authors:  J Burley; J Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 6.  The cost of refusing treatment and equality of outcome.

Authors:  J Savulescu
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.903

  6 in total
  3 in total

1.  Doctors' orders, rationality and the good life: commentary on Savulescu.

Authors:  J Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Just another reproductive technology? The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure.

Authors:  D Elsner
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 3.  The physician as an accessory in the parental project of HIV positive people.

Authors:  Guido Pennings
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.903

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.