Advertisement

Surgical Ethics and the Surgical Societies: What Are We Doing?

  • Richard I. WhyteEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Surgical professional societies constitute a diverse group of organizations whose primary purposes are generally a combination of education and advocacy—advocacy for both the profession and for patients. Such organizations also reflect the ethical norms and values of their members which they may publish through policies and written codes of conduct. The purpose of this chapter is to examine how professional surgical societies address various ethical issues—whether it be at the policy level, the internal self-governance of the organization, discipline and supervision of the professional behavior of its members, or the educational level. This chapter will also address the issue of managing conflicts between the ethical perspectives of different professional societies—whether an individual member has to choose between the ethical obligations espoused by multiple organizations or whether there can be a middle ground.

Keywords

Professional society Advocacy Ethics education Code of conduct Professional ethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Beauchamps TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 3.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beauchamps TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 13.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fox R. Is medical education asking too much of bioethics? Daedalus. 1999;128(4):1–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest. JAMA. 2009;301(13):1367–72.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Pellegrino ED, Relman AS. Professional medical associations ethical and practical guidelines. JAMA. 1999;282(10):984–6.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.10.984.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rothman DJ. Medical professionalism — focusing on the real issues. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1284–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minkoff H, Ecker J. When guild interests and professional obligations collide. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(2):454–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Svider PF, Eloy JA, Baredes S, Setzen M, Folbe AJ. Expert witness testimony guidelines: identifying areas for improvement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152(2):207–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599814556721. Epub 2014 Nov 11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vogelstein E. Professional hubris and its consequences: why organizations of health-care professions should not adopt ethically controversial positions. Bioethics. 2016;30(4):234–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12186. Epub 2015 Aug 26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferreres AR, Angelos P, Singer EA, editors. Ethical issues in surgical care. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2017.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Rouprêt M, Morgan TM, Bostrom PJ, et al. European Association of Urology recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):628–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.046. Epub 2014 Jul 16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations