Do-no-harm ethics: A lighthouse amid dark waters: A reply to Harvey and Koocher’s (2021) “Learning to paddle against the current: A commentary on Conrad’s (2019) ‘Moving upstream in the post-Hoffman era when ethical responsibilities conflict with the law’ ”.

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 647-652
Author(s):  
Mandy Conrad ◽  
Roy Eidelson
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 181-191
Author(s):  
Józef Kożuchowski

The article presents the concept of moral obligations that man has towards animals proposed by Robert Spaemann. Spaemann give reasons for perceiving animal as an object of the law. His analyses present possibilities of solving basic moral questions like for example experiments on animals, animal husbandry, animal slaughter, hunting, interfering into animal's nature and our responsibility for them. Spaemann presents very original arguments for taking care of and responsibility for animals, deriving it from human dignity.


1979 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Lipkind

Writing in 1912, Bertrand Russell declared talk of causes and of causality to be obsolete, noting its elimination from scientific theory as he saw it: “in advanced sciences such as gravitational astronomy, the word 'cause' never occurs .... The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” Causal laws, he claimed, “tend to be replaced by quite different laws as soon as a science is successful.”


2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Brazier

TOWARDS the end of his judgment in R. v. Collins and Ashworth Hospital Authority ex p. Brady,Kay J. (as he then was) delivered the following homily: it would seem to me a matter of deep regret if the law has developed to a point in this area where the rights of a patient count for everything and other ethical values and institutional integrity count for nothing.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Leslie ◽  
Mary Casper

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.


2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (16) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
BETSY BATES FREED
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document