Serious professional misconduct and the need for an apology

Clinical Ethics 5 (3):130-135 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I argue that doctors who are found guilty of serious professional misconduct should be required to apologize as a condition of their registration. I argue that such a requirement is to be justified on the basis of the need to protect patients, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. I also answer an objection that might be made to the position I defend. Finally, I consider whether there should be any exceptions to the demand for an apology from doctors who have been found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Professors behaving badly: faculty misconduct in graduate education.John M. Braxton - 2011 - Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Edited by Eve Proper & Alan E. Bayer.
Misconduct in science and the German law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
Professional Responsibility, Misconduct and Practical Reason.Chris Clark - 2007 - Ethics and Social Welfare 1 (1):56-75.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
61 (#259,066)

6 months
10 (#255,509)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Demian Whiting
University of Hull

Citations of this work

Communication: illusion or reality?S. Eckstein - 2010 - Clinical Ethics 5 (3):113-114.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references