Advertisement

Dual-Loyalty and Human Rights in Health Professional Practice: Proposed Guidelines and Institutional Mechanisms

  • International Dual-Loyalty Working Group
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New book series (LIME, volume 41)

The problem of dual-loyalty-simultaneous obligations, express or implied, to a patient and to a third party, often the state-continues to challenge health professionals. Health professional ethics have long stressed the need for loyalty to people in their care. In the modern world, however, health professionals are increasingly asked to weigh their devotion to patients against service to the objectives of government or other third parties. Dual-loyalty poses particular challenges for health professionals throughout the world when the subordination of the patient’s interests to state or other purposes risks violating the patient’s human rights. Efforts to bolster ethical codes to address these challenges have only marginally succeeded, as will be discussed in Chapter 2 (not herein included). The goals of this project are to identify the dimensions of dual-loyalty and to propose guidelines and mechanisms for the prevention of complicity by health professionals in human rights violations. This introductory chapter defines what dual-loyalty is, explains how professional ethics and human rights relate in solving dual-loyalty problems, and explores the obligations of health professionals to respect human rights. These introductory comments provide the background for a description of the motivation for and scope of this project.

Keywords

Health Professional Medical Ethic Racial Discrimination Ethical Code World Medical Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1998. Human Rights and Health: The Legacy of Apartheid. New York: AAAS.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin-Ragaven, Laurel et al. 1999. An Ambulance of the Wrong Colour. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, Dan E. and Bonnie Steinbock. 1999. New Ethics for the Public’s Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, Tom L. and James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloche, Gregg. 1999. Clinical Loyalties and the Social Purposes of Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 281.3: 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloche, M. Gregg. 2001. Caretakers and Collaborators. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10.3: 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. British Medical Association. 2001. The Medical Profession and Human Rights: A Handbook for a Changing Agenda. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, Audrey R. and Sage Russell, eds. 2002. Core Obligations: Building a Framework for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Antwerpen, The Netherlands: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, Arnold M. et al. 2000. Racial Disparities in Access to Renal Transplantation—Clinically Appropriate or Due to Underuse or Overuse? New England Journal of Medicine 343.21: 1537–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, David B. et al. 2001. Comparative Efficiency of National Health Systems: Cross National Econometric Analysis. British Medical Journal 323: 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, David B. et al. 2001. Measuring Quality: From the System to the Provider. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 13.6: 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillon, Raanan. 1994. Preface: Medical Ethics and the Four Principles. In Principles of Health Care Ethics, eds. Raanan Gillon and Lloyd, xxi. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Gillon, Raanan. 1994. Medical Ethics: Four Principles Plus Attention to Scope. British Medical Journal 309: 184–188.Google Scholar
  15. Groote Schuur Hospital Notice #12/97, cited in the Health and Human Rights Project, Final Submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.Google Scholar
  16. Gruskin, Sofia and Daniel Tarantola. 2004. Health and Human Rights. In Oxford Textbook of Public Health, eds. Roger Detels et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Henkin, Louis. 1990. The Age of Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kass, Nancy E. 2001. An Ethics Framework for Public Health. American Journal of Public Health 91.11: 1776–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kawachi, Ihiro and Bruce P. Kennedy. 2002. The Health of Nations: Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kessel, Anthony. Forthcoming. Public Health Ethics: Teaching Survey and Critical Review. Social Science and Medicine.Google Scholar
  21. Lowe, M. et al. 1995. These Sorts of People Don’t Do Very Well: Race and Allocation of Health Care Resources. Journal of Medical Ethics 21.6: 356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mann, Jonathan M. 1999. Medicine and Public Health, Ethics and Human Rights. In Health and Human Rights: A Reader, eds. Jonathan M. Mann et al., 439–452. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Mann, Jonathan M. et al. 1994. Health and Human Rights. Health and Human Rights: An International Journal 1.1: 7–23.Google Scholar
  24. Ngwena, Charles. 2000. The Recognition of Access to Health Care as a Human Right in South Africa: Is it Enough? Health and Human Rights: An International Journal 5.1: 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peter, Fabienne and Timothy Evans. 2001. Ethical Dimensions of Health Equity. In Challenging Inequalities in Health. From Ethics to Action, eds. Timothy Evans et al., 25–33. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Roberts, Marc J. and Michael Reich. 2002. Ethical Analysis in Public Health. Lancet. 359.9311: 1055–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scott, Craig and Philip Alston. 2000. Adjudicating Constitutional Priorities in a Transnational Context: A Comment on the Soobramoney’s Legacy and Grootboom’s Promise. South African Journal on Human Rights 16: 206–268.Google Scholar
  28. Schulman, Kevin A. et al. 1999. The Effect of Race and Sex on Physicians’ Recommendations for Cardiac Catheterization. New England Journal of Medicine 340.8: 618–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shklar, Judith. 1990. The Faces of Injustice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Smedley, Brian D. et al. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. South Africa’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Programme. 1998. Special Investigation into Project Coast. Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report, Vol. II, Chapter 6, 29 October 1998.Google Scholar
  33. Steiner, Henry and Philip Alston. 2000. International Human Rights Law in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. United Nations. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, art. 5(b).Google Scholar
  35. United Nations. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. art. 2, sec. 1(d); art. 5(e).Google Scholar
  36. United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Preamble, art. 4.Google Scholar
  37. United Nations. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health. General comment 14.Google Scholar
  38. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 1.Google Scholar
  39. World Health Organization. 25 Questions and Answers on Health and Human Rights, 22. Geneva: WHO, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. World Medical Association. Declaration of Geneva.Google Scholar
  41. World Medical Association. International Code of Medical Ethics.Google Scholar
  42. World Medical Association. Declaration of Tokyo: Guidelines for Medical Doctors Concerning Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment.Google Scholar
  43. World Medical Association. Resolution on Human Rights.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • International Dual-Loyalty Working Group

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations