Good and not so good medical ethics
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, I provide a brief sketch of the purposes that medical ethics serves and what makes for good medical ethics. Medical ethics can guide clinical practice and biomedical research, contribute to the education of clinicians, advance thinking in the field, and direct healthcare policy. Although these are distinct activities, they are alike in several critical respects. Good medical ethics is coherent, illuminating, accurate, reasonable, consistent, informed, and measured. After this overview, I provide specific examples to illustrate some of the ways in which medical ethics could go wrong as a caution and a reminder that taking on the role of an ethicist involves serious responsibilities that must be exercised with care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The process of translating principles in AI Ethics will likely encounter incommensurable moral norms and frameworks which present true moral dilemmas that principlism cannot resolve.
“This process will likely encounter incommensurable moral norms and frameworks which present true moral dilemmas that principlism cannot resolve.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
Prior research on the impact of codes of ethics on professional behaviour has revealed mixed results.
“Prior research on the impact of codes of ethics on professional behaviour has revealed mixed results.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
Codes of ethics are often followed in letter rather than spirit, or as a checklist rather than as part of a critical reflexive practice.
“Codes are often followed in letter rather than spirit, or as a 'checklist' rather than as part of a critical reflexive practice.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
Cites
Cytokine Storm in a Phase 1 Trial of the Anti-CD28 Monoclonal Antibody TGN1412
Suntharalingam, G., Perry, M. R., Ward, S., Brett, S. J., Castello-Cortes, A., Brunner, M. D., & Panoskaltsis, N. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa063842 · Cited by 2,164 · see citing works
Clouser, K. D., & Gert, B. (1990) · Journal of Medicine and Philosophy · doi:10.1093/jmp/15.2.219 · Cited by 552 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · see citing works
Gillon, R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102282 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
AI Ethics – Too Principled to Fail?
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3391293 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rhodes, R.
- Affiliations
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rhodes, Rosamond
- ORCID
- Rhodes, Rosamond
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-12-16
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-74
- ISSN
- 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4257
- OpenAlex
- W2123440917
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Keywords
- medical ethics, coherence, accuracy, consistency, moral reasoning, clinical practice, biomedical research ethics, medical education, healthcare policy
- MeSH terms
- Ethics, Medical, Humans, Ethics Committees, Principle-Based Ethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
