A unique structured approach to solving ethical issues that arise in daily clinical practice
A Doody's Core Title for 2011!
Clinical Ethics teaches the widely-known Four-Topics Method to help you make the right choice when facing complex ethical questions and dilemmas encountered during everyday patient care. You will learn an easy-to-apply system based on simple questions about medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and contextual features that clearly explain clinical ethics and helps you formulate a sound diagnosis and treatment strategy.
The content you need to make the right
Introduction; Medical Intervention; Patient Preferences; Quality of Life; Contextual Features.
Required reading for class - not exactly a 'fun' read. It was interesting to read about the suggestions in different ethical cases, some of them surprised me.
I do wish the authors put the comments/recommendations directly under each case they touch on. A few times there are multiple cases listed back-to-back and then the discussion for each individual case is sort of thrown together in one big statement. This would make sense if they had similar conclusions but they didn't.
Odd that a book on ethics, written in 2015, would continue to make reference to ‘Anglo-American’ law. What the hell does that mean??? The first use of it is in a quote from 1960 - not okay, but more understandable. The subsequent mentions are just casually thrown in by the authors.
So a book dealing with ethics (basically, moral principles) finds it appropriate to continually draw attention to ‘Anglo’ as if this is in contrast to some separate kind of law in the U.S. - a country founded on and still struggling with its past/present oppression and crimes attached to both race and ethnicity. But I guess I shouldn’t be shocked that I’m forced to read yet another book for my formal education that contains these types of micro-aggressions. After all, this is a country that believes critical race theory should be silenced. The publisher, editor (or better yet, the authors!) should do better.