Skip to main content

Prof. W. G. Irwin: A Case Study in the Development of Medical Ethics Education in the UK

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 786 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Ethics ((BRIEFSETHIC))

Abstract

On his appointment in 1971 William George Irwin became the UK’s second Professor of General Practice and the first on the island of Ireland. Given the high percentage, both then and now, of medical graduates who go on to become GPs it is somewhat startling to note that it was only at this time that medical schools began to directly address General Practice in their curricula. Given the social organisation of medical education the introduction of a Professor of General Practice meant the introduction of a Department of General Practice and so the guarantee of curriculum time. In the context of the ever-increasing drive towards medical specialism, kick-started by the various reports of Abraham Flexnor and having their basis in biomedical science, General Practice, and the other ‘Cinderella’ subjects of medicine, were at a distinct disadvantage in terms of the kind of knowledge they had to offer. On his appointment Prof WG Irwin’s first task was to articulate General Practice as a medical specialism and, in so doing, produce a curriculum and, as we shall see, pedagogy that could meet its specific needs. He also articulated a research program that would distinctively identify General Practice as not only a medical specialism but as an academic area of enquiry. The way in which Irwin accomplished this task is discussed in the first section of this chapter. In the subsequent sections I trace his teaching career from his first foray into medical ethics, a course addressing issues in terminal care, and, via a seat on the Warnock Committee, to the design and implementation of a multi-disciplinary course in medical ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These are: Abortion; Adultery; Alcohol; Addiction; Association; and Advertising. Despite Wilson’s claim that they are ‘well known’ I have founded little reference to them other than the entry ‘A’s, Rule of.’ in The New Dictionary of Medical Ethics (Boyd et al. 1997).

  2. 2.

    Including, one presumes, the female medical students who, he acknowledges, constitute one-third of the cohort (Wilson 1982, p. 29).

  3. 3.

    Irwin cites Samuel Butler as the source of this passage but gives no further reference.

  4. 4.

    If this is the case than I think Prof Irwin is, like Ranaan Gillion, suggesting that whilst all the principles of medical ethics are of equal importance it is nevertheless the case that one is more equal than the others. Unlike Gillion (2003), and like Pellegrino (1989), I think Irwin would say that this principle is beneficence and not autonomy/respect for the authority of the patient.

References

  • Balint, M. 2000. The doctor, his patient and the illness, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2008. (First Published 1979). Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, K.M., R. Higgs, and A. Pinching. 1997. The new dictionary of medical ethics. London: BMJ Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canguilhem, G. 1991. The normal and the pathological, New ed. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich, N., 2011a. Taking education seriously: Developing bourdieuan social theory in the context of teaching and learning medical ethics in the UK undergraduate medical degree. (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich, N. 2011b. Whatever happened to medical politics? Journal of Medical Ethics 37(10): 631–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich, N. 2011c. Literature, history and the humanization of bioethics. Bioethics 25(1): 112–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R. 1986. Philosophical medical ethics. Great Britain: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R., 2003. Section: IV. United Kingdom. Entry: Medical ethics, history of europe: Contemporary period, 3rd edition, vol 3. In Encyclopedia of bioethics, ed. Post, S.G, 1613–1624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, R. 2001. The history of the teaching of the specialty of general practice in northern Ireland. (Presidential address to the ulster medical society). The Ulster Medical Journal 70(1): 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, R.W., 2003. The history of the teaching of the specialty of general practice in Northern Ireland (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, R.W. 2006. GP education in Northern Ireland 1920–1990: A Study of the use and misuse of power (The 2005 rose prize essay). The Ulster Medical Journal 75(2): 141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., 1969. Multiple screening with the technicon autoanalyzer in a general practice at finaghy health centre, Co. Antrim (Unpublished MD Thesis). Belfast: The Queens’ University of Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G. 1973. The need for academic general practice: An inaugural lecture. Belfast: Queen’s University of Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G. 1984a. Teaching terminal care at Queen’s University of Belfast I: Course, sessional educational objectives, and content. British Medical Journal 289(6457): 1509–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G. 1984b. Teaching terminal care at Queen’s University of Belfast II: Teaching arrangements and assessment of topic. British Medical Journal 289(6458): 1604–1605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G. 1987. Medical ethics (Presidential address to the ulster medical society). The Ulster Medical Journal 56(1): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., and J.H. Bamber. 1978a. An Evaluation of a Course for Undergraduate Teaching of General Practice. Medical Education 12(1): 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., and J.H. Bamber. 1978b. Characteristics of Senior Medical Students at Belfast. Medical Education 12(2): 117–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., and J.H. Bamber. 1982. The Cognitive Structure of the Modified Essay Question. Medical Education 16(6): 326–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., and J.H. Bamber. 1984. An Evaluation of Medical Student Behaviours in Communication. Medical Education 18(2): 90–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., J.H. Bamber, and J. Henneman. 1976. Constructing a New Course for Undergraduate Teaching of General Practice. Medical Education 10(4): 302–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, W.G., R.J. McClelland, R.W. Stout, and M. Stchedroff. 1988. Multidisciplinary teaching in a formal medical ethics course for clinical students. Journal of Medical Ethics 14(3): 125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, C. 1982. Disabilities and how to live with them: Teratoma of the testis. Lancet 318(8291): 203–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, C. 1984. Whose choice? Whose consent?. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholl, J., and W. Holland. 2010. John Pemberton. British Medical Journal 340(7753): 977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, Edmund D. Character, Virtue and Self-Interest in the Ethics of the Professions. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 5: 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pond, D. 1987. IME report of a working party on the teaching of medical ethics (The pond report). London: The Institute of Medical Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. 2002. Two concepts of medical ethics and their implications for medical ethics education. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27(4): 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.A. 1984. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, T. B. 1975. Medical Students and Their Education. The Ulster Medical Journal 44(1): 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, R.W., and J.H. Bamber. 1979. A New Undergraduate Teaching Course in Geriatric Medicine. Medical Education 13(5): 363–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, R. W., and W.G. Irwin. 1982. Integrated Medical Student Teaching. A Combined Course in Community Medicine, General Practice, Geriatric Medicine and Mental Health. Medical Education 16(3): 143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warnock, M. 1985. Moral thinking and government policy: The warnock committee on human embryology. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 63(3): 504–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. 1982. Old ethics: New dilemmas. The Ulster Medical Journal 51(1): 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., 2011a. Who guards the guardians? Ian Kennedy, bioethics and the ‘ideology of accountability’ in British medicine. Social history of medicine. Forthcoming, Early View. http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/01/shm.hkr090.abstract.

  • Wright, Richard A. 1987. Human Values in Health Care: The Practice of Ethics. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Emmerich .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Emmerich, N. (2013). Prof. W. G. Irwin: A Case Study in the Development of Medical Ethics Education in the UK. In: Medical Ethics Education: An Interdisciplinary and Social Theoretical Perspective. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00485-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics