2009MD Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Can anyone recommend a good medical ethics book to read? How are people preparing for the ethics questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcpherv Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Doing Right by Dr. Philip Hebert is basically all you'll need - its written by an ethics proffessor at UoT and presents the Canadian laws and cases surrounding the issues. Can't recommend it enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009MD Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Thanks!! I'll definitely look that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcpherv Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 No problem, 2009MD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBP Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Just saw there is a new edition, anyone know the difference? 2e: http://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0195428412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234773107&sr=1-1 1e: http://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0195411048/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngdad Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I disagreed with some of Hebert's conclusions. Had to put the book down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cndkalu Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Doing Right (philip C herbert) Well and Good - a case study approach of biomedical ethics (john thomas n' wilfrid waluchow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcwxyz Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I disagreed with some of Hebert's conclusions. Had to put the book down. Like what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauryn Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Just saw there is a new edition, anyone know the difference? 2e: http://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0195428412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234773107&sr=1-1 1e: http://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0195411048/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1 The content is more or less the same, but he draws different conclusions for some of his cases. E.g. at the very beginning of the book there is an introductory case about prescribing antibiotics against your best judgment to a frustrated patient on a Friday afternoon. He allows it in the first edition, but not the second. If you are reading the book just to familiarize yourself with some cases and ethical terms, than either version goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngdad Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Like what? You are a family doc. Patient comes in with classic cold symptoms. You tell him to get some rest and drink some fluids; "We can send a man to the moon, but we can't cure the common cold". He says he wants antibiotics and his old doc used to always give them to him. He is certain they will help. Hebert: Don't give the meds (autonomy - he is rational and wants the meds, justice - poor allocation of resources to prescribe to someone who doesn't need, benefit - none, unless diagnosis is wrong, harm - potential for antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria being selected) Good practice. Then Hebert tries to illustrate the importance of context. Hebert: If it is late on a Friday and I am tired, and all my office staff are tired and heading for home, and the patient is adamant. I might give the meds. Huh? Total garbage. The ethics have not changed yet the treatment has. Hebert would not give a treatment that has no chance of benefit and some chance of harm, unless the patient really wants it? Or if he is tired? Sorry, that's poor practice. Anybody who read this scenario in Hebert's book want to back me up on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngdad Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 The content is more or less the same, but he draws different conclusions for some of his cases. E.g. at the very beginning of the book there is an introductory case about prescribing antibiotics against your best judgment to a frustrated patient on a Friday afternoon. He allows it in the first edition, but not the second. If you are reading the book just to familiarize yourself with some cases and ethical terms, than either version goes. Oh wow! Maybe ignore my last post. I didn't see this! I guess I was reading the old edition. Eureka! I am pretty proud of myself that I had a problem with that case. Haha. Hebert you old dog you! I can't believe I nailed that! I guess maybe there was some backlash that made its way back to the author so he changed it. Hilarious! Either way, I guess his book is good for stimulating thought on some issues. But read the preface and live by it. Hebert explains that nobody, including Hebert himself, has all the solutions. Think critically while you read it and don't take his conclusions as doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yea exactly, the most important thing to take away from it is the thought process behind the dilemma, not the actual "answer" because there rarely is ever just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.