By: Tom Koch

Tom Koch — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:54:00 +0000

I appreciate Mr. Rivers’ careful read and consideration of this work. And he certainly gets–and apparently appreciates–its central theme. At the heart of bioethics is an economic perspective and a reliance on the status quo that has little to do with ethics and everything to do with …bioethics position in the world. That said, I note his criticism over my failure to adequately present a discussion of Principlism. While I considered it I’ve noted, in recent years, its disavowal by many bioethicists. To do as he would have asked would have required a full chapter on Principlism and the means by which its elements have been maintained even among those who insist their intellectual alleigance lies elsewhere (communitarianism, feminism, utilitarianism, etc.). I didn’t have space for that in this volume. Perhaps the next.

By: kidmugsy

kidmugsy — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:19:00 +0000

While it should be axiomatic to assume that bioethicists will by now form a group concerned mainly with advancing their own interests, I do wonder about:
1) “Who benefits presenting scarcity as a natural state in health care?” I don’t understand that sentence, but scarcity will always be a natural state in health care as long as doctors expect to be paid for their work. (And nurses, pharma companies and so on.)
2) ” Who killed the Hippocratic Oath?” Cock Robin, probably.
3) ” Why are doctors portrayed as paternalistic?” Portrayed by whom?
4) “Why has patient care become a secondary concern to budgetary constraints?” Patient care is an objective: a budgetary constraint is just a constraint. These are different things: I don’t see what “secondary” has to do with it. Put otherwise: a secondary concern to whom? Of course, if doctors were willing to work for no pay, budgetary constraints would briefly relax – see point (1) above.

Comments on: Book Review: Tom Koch, “Thieves of Virtue: When Bioethics Stole Medicine

By: Tom Koch

By: kidmugsy