Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

An A–Z of medical philosophy

Meta-ethics

David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (618): 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X676519
David Misselbrook
GP, Dean Emeritus of the Royal Society of Medicine, Course Director of the Diploma of the Philosophy of Medicine of the Society of Apothecaries, and Senior Ethics Advisor.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

How do we tell the difference between right and wrong? Perhaps most of the time it’s enough to follow the rules of our particular culture. But how do we justify our cultural rules, and how do we cope with new or difficult cases? Is there any ultimate guide to right and wrong, or are we merely arguing about preferences?

There are four main traditions that inform our current Western consensus statements on medical ethics. These are the virtue ethics of ancient Greece, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, deontology, and utilitarianism. We can see the three main secular moral systems as giving guidance at the three different levels of an act. Virtue guides our choice in the goal or motive of an act. Deontology guides our choice regarding the nature of an act itself. Consequentialism guides our choice when we take into account the specific circumstances of an individual instance of an act.

Problems with enlightenment moral theories are becoming ever more pressing, making one question whether Principlism has any theoretical legs to stand on. Both deontological and utilitarian models work excellently with easy cases. Should I normally steal? Should I aim to betray my friends? Should I routinely break my promises? No one after early childhood has any problem knowing the answer to such questions, but who needs deontological or utilitarian theory to work it out?

Virtue ethics all but disappeared under the onslaught of the enlightenment, and was largely replaced by its competing moral theories. But deontology is notoriously inadequate in guiding my actions when my duties conflict. Utilitarianism is notoriously inadequate in obtaining justice for individuals or minorities. Traditionally both of these theories have been either modified or used selectively to utilise their strong points and minimise their down side. But how can one say that either is a proper theory of morality if one has to adjust the conclusion to ensure the right result? Perhaps we have to look to virtue ethics to fix this.

Virtue ethics supports a broad account of moral realism that enables us to argue the case for broadly based ethical judgements in clinical practice. It also puts me, as a human acting as a practitioner, squarely in the frame. Moral reasoning is not a theoretical exercise analogous to engineering. It is a human activity rooted in human givens, human transactions, human relationships and the context of our wider society.

In the real world we have to make judgements about acts and options that are not perfect, and these three moral theories may all help us to do this. In the real world few acts will be perfect, and we must therefore use our human judgement to decide on the best of the possible options: simple rules may not be able to give us a rigorous answer.

If we take this approach it is clear that the three theories are not of equal weight. This is obvious when I consider the issue of why we find problems with any particular moral system in the first place. Reflection suggests that aretaic morality actually has a place at the top of the food chain in all moral reasoning.

CPD further study and reflective notes

The notes in Boxes 1 and 2 will help you to read and reflect further on any of the brief articles in this series. If this learning relates to your professional development then you should put it in your annual PDP and claim self-certified CPD points within the RCGP guidelines set out at http://bit.ly/UT5Z3V.

Box 1. Reflective notes

  • Think about the last few medical decisions that you made that have a moral or ethical dimension to them. How would you explain your decisions to someone who disagreed?

  • How do those reasons relate to moral theory?

Box 2. Further reading

MacIntyre A, Alasdair C. After Virtue: a study in moral theory. London: Duckworth, 1985. Chapters 4 & 5.

Sandel M. Justice. What’s the right thing to do? London: Penguin, 2010.

If your reading and reflection is occasional and opportunistic, claims in this one area should not exceed 10 CPD credits per year. However if you decide to use this material to develop your understanding of medical philosophy and ethics as a significant part of a PDP, say over 2 years, then a larger number of credits can be claimed so long as there is evidence of balance over a 5-year cycle. These credits should demonstrate the impact of your reflection on your practice (for example, by way of case studies or other evidence), and must be validated by your appraiser.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2014
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 64 (618)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 64, Issue 618
January 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An A–Z of medical philosophy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
An A–Z of medical philosophy
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (618): 39. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X676519

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
An A–Z of medical philosophy
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (618): 39. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X676519
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • CPD further study and reflective notes
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Fakery and science
  • Viewpoint: Redundant subjectivity?
  • Books: A Layman’s Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis
Show more Out of Hours

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242