ArticleJournal of medical ethics2002
Supererogation and the profession of medicine.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Professionalism--connecting the past and the present and a blueprint for the Canadian Association of General Surgeons.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2008Guideline
- A Morally Permissible Moral Mistake? Reinterpreting a Thought Experiment as Proof of Concept.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Resilience among doctors who work in challenging areas: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
- Supererogation in clinical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008Article
- The altruistic act of asking.Journal of medical ethics · 2003Article
- Supererogation and altruism: a comment.Journal of medical ethics · 2002Article
- Commentary on Glannon and Ross, and McKay.Journal of medical ethics · 2002Article
- How Should Therapists Treat Patients who are so Altruistic They Regularly Harm Themselves for the Sake of Others?Innovations in clinical neuroscienceReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the light of increasing public mistrust, there is an urgent need to clarify the moral status of the medical profession and of the relationship of the clinician to his/her patients. In addressing this question, I first establish the coherence, within moral philosophy generally, of the concept of supererogation (the doing of more than one's duty). I adopt the notion of an act of "unqualified" supererogation as one that is non-derivatively good, praiseworthy, and freely undertaken for others' benefit at the risk of some cost to the agent. I then argue that committing oneself to the profession of clinical medicine is an act of this kind. This is the case, not because the aim of medicine is to help patients, but because of the open ended commitment of time and the vulnerability to the consequences of failure that the clinician must accept.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.