School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Med J Aust. 2010 Jun 7;192(11):658-60. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03670.x.
Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia provides uniform standards to be applied in relation to complaints about doctors to the new Medical Board of Australia. The draft Code was criticised for being prescriptive. The final Code employs apparently less authoritative wording than the draft Code, but the implicit obligations it contains are no less prescriptive. Although the draft Code was thought to potentially undermine trust in doctors, and stifle professional judgement in relation to individual patients, its general obligations always allowed for flexibility of application, depending on the circumstances of individual patients. Professional codes may contain some aspirational statements, but they always contain authoritative ones, and they share this feature with legal codes. In successfully diluting the apparent prescriptivity of the draft Code, the profession has lost an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the raison d'etre of self-regulation - the protection of patients. Professional codes are not opportunities for reflection, consideration and debate, but are outcomes of these activities.
澳大利亚医生行为准则为向新成立的澳大利亚医疗委员会投诉医生提供了统一的标准。该准则草案因具有规定性而受到批评。最终的准则采用的措辞显然不如准则草案具有权威性,但其中隐含的义务同样具有规定性。尽管有人认为准则草案可能会破坏对医生的信任,并抑制对个别患者的专业判断,但它的一般义务总是允许根据个别患者的情况灵活适用。专业准则可能包含一些理想的陈述,但它们始终包含权威性的陈述,并且与法律准则具有这一共同特征。该行业成功地淡化了准则草案的明显规定性,从而失去了一次展示其对自我监管宗旨(保护患者)的承诺的机会。专业准则不是反思、考虑和辩论的机会,而是这些活动的结果。