Physicians' strikes--a rejoinder

Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (4):196-197 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The author, a physician, rejects a previous defence of a doctors' strike. There is little justification for strikes in general, still less for doctors' strikes, he claims. Should not doctors rather 'stand above the common herd' and set an example, he asks. Furthermore the whole idea of strikes in which a third and innocent party is deliberately punished in order to apply pressure on someone else is a 'a bizarre ethic indeed' and not to his knowledge justified under any ethical theory

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Health workers' strikes: a further rejoinder.S. M. Glick - 1986 - Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (1):43-44.
Physicians' strikes--second thoughts.M. Garty - 1986 - Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (2):104-105.
Health workers' strikes: a rejoinder rejected.R. Brecher - 1986 - Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (1):40-42.
Strikes by Physicians in Public Hospitals in India.Sunil K. Pandya - 2000 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (4):460-469.
Collective Action by Physicians: Beyond Strikes.Susan Dorr Goold - 2000 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (4):498-503.
A Rejoinder to the Danapur Rejoinder.Raymond Wilson - 1984 - British Journal of Educational Studies 32 (1):55 - 57.
What doctors should call their patients.M. Lavin - 1988 - Journal of Medical Ethics 14 (3):129-131.
An ultra‐Keynesian strikes back: Rejoinder to Horwitz.Greg Hill - 1998 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 12 (1-2):113-126.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
99 (#175,263)

6 months
10 (#268,644)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references