Francis Leslie
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020 Jul;29(3):426-428. doi: 10.1017/S096318012000016X.
In "Medical Ethics: Common or Uncommon Morality,"1 Rosamond Rhodes defends a specialist view of medical ethics, specifically the ethics of physicians. Rhodes's account is specifically about the ethics of medical professionals, rooted in what these professionals do. It would seem to follow that other healthcare professions might be subject to ethical standards that differ from those applicable to physicians, rooted in what these other professions do, but I leave this point aside for purposes of this commentary. Rhodes's view includes both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis is that precepts in medical ethics-understood as the ethics of physicians-cannot be derived from principles of common morality. The positive thesis is two-fold: that precepts in medical ethics must be derived from an account of the special nature of what physicians do, and that this account is to be understood through an overlapping consensus of rational and reasonable medical professionals. While I agree emphatically with, and have learned a great deal from, Rhodes's defense of the negative thesis, I disagree with both claims in Rhodes's positive thesis, for reasons I will now explain after a brief observation about the negative thesis.
在《医学伦理：普遍道德还是特殊道德》中，罗莎蒙德·罗兹为医学伦理的一种专业观点进行了辩护，特别是关于医生的伦理。罗兹的论述专门针对医学专业人员的伦理，其基础是这些专业人员的工作内容。似乎由此可以推断，其他医疗保健专业可能会遵循与适用于医生的伦理标准不同的伦理标准，其依据是这些其他专业的工作内容，但为了本评论的目的，我将这一点搁置一旁。罗兹的观点包括一个否定论点和一个肯定论点。否定论点是，医学伦理（理解为医生的伦理）中的戒律不能从普遍道德原则中推导出来。肯定论点有两个方面：医学伦理中的戒律必须从对医生工作的特殊性质的描述中推导出来，并且这种描述要通过理性且合理的医学专业人员的重叠共识来理解。虽然我强烈赞同罗兹对否定论点的辩护，并从中学到了很多，但我不同意罗兹肯定论点中的两个主张，原因我将在对否定论点进行简要评论后加以解释。
