PubMed · 1064696
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K M Sward. 1975. The code for nurses: a guide for ethical nursing practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1064696/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Medicine, law, and social values are not static and must be re-examined periodically. This edition of the ACP Ethics Manual covers emerging issues in medical ethics and revisits some old issues. The overview of the evolution of medical ethics, which appeared in previous editions of the Manual, has been eliminated to allow more space for the consideration of today's ethical dilemmas. Other changes include a revised chapter on end-of-life care, discussion of physician-assisted suicide, revised sections on conflicts of interest and on medical risk to the physician and patient, given developments in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and discussion of sexual contact between physician and patient. A statement on disclosure of errors and a section on care of the physician's family have also been added. The sections on confidential information told by a patient's family or friend to the physician; on physician-pharmaceutical industry relations; on physicians in training; and on the impaired physician have been expanded. Sections on advertising, peer review, and resource allocation have been revised. The literature of biomedical ethics expands at a rate that does not allow a bibliography to remain current, so an exhaustive list of references or suggested readings is not included in this manual. Instead, only cited references are listed.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
When clinical ethicists are called upon to give a recommendation regarding patient care, they may be faced with a dilemma of their own. If their own personal opinion is not widely shared, the ethicist will have three options. These include: (1) giving their own opinion; (2) giving the widely shared opinion; and (3) giving both opinions, leaving the physician to select which opinion to accept. The intentions of this article are to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of these three alternatives and to suggest that ethics consultants recognize and deal with this issue. Two cases are presented to explore the limitations of each option. The author suggests that when the views of ethics consultants differ from the consensus view, the consultant should give the consensus view, their own dissenting view and the arguments in support of each position.