Advertisement

Ethics in Academic Medicine

  • Anne Drapkin Lyerly
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 48)

Abstract

Membership in academic medicine carries with it special challenges and responsibilities in such matters as patient-physician relations, physician conduct and practice, and conflict of interest. This chapter addresses a limited selection of ethical issues in academic medicine that particularly apply to women’s healthcare.

Keywords

Ethics Bioethics Professional ethics Conflict of interest Innovative practice Gender schemas Conscience 

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. 2009. Women and health: Today’s evidence, tomorrow’s agenda. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241563857_eng.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2007. Committee Opinion #390: Ethical decision making in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110(6):1479–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Little, M. 1996. Why a Feminist approach to bioethics? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6(1):1–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rayburn, W.F., B.L. Anderson, J.V. Johnson, M.A. McReynolds, and J. Schulkin. 2010. Trends in the academic workforce in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115(1):141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. 2003. Common program requirements for duty hours. Chicago, IL: ACGME.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2007. Committee opinion 385: The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110:1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tang, T.S., and E.P. Skye. 2009. When patients decline medical student participation: the preceptor’s perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education 14:645–653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2009. Committee opinion number 439: Informed consent, August 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Studdert, D.M., M.M. Mello, and T.A. Brennan. 2004. Financial conflicts of interest in physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. New England Journal of Medicine 351:1891–1900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz, D., A.L. Caplan, and J.F. Merz. 2003. All gifts large and small: Toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. American Journal of Bioethics 3(3):39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wazana, A. 2000. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? Journal of the American Medical Association 283:373–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brennan, T.A., D.J. Rothman, L. Blank, D. Blumenthal, S.C. Chimonas, J.J. Cohen, J. Goldman, J.P. Kassirer, H. Kimball, J. Naughton, and N. Smelser. 2006. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. Journal of the American Medical Association 295(4):429–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rothman, D.J., and S. Chimonas. 2008. New developments in managing physician-industry relationships. Journal of the American Medical Association 300(9):1067–1069.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2008. Committee opinion #401: Relationships with industry. Obstetrics & Gynecology 111(3):799–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singer, N. 2010. Stanford Medical School to expand ethics rules. New York Times, 21 Mar 2010.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lyerly, A.D. 2009. Review of test tube families: Why the fertility market needs regulation, by Naomi Kahn. New England Journal of Medicine 310:429–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lyerly, A.D. 2010. Marking the fine line: Ethics and the regulation of innovative technologies in human reproduction. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11(2):685–712.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wall, L. 2010. The perils of commercially driven surgical innovation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202:30.e1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knowles, L., and G. Kaebnick, eds. 2007. Reprogenetics: Law, policy and ethical issues. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mastroianni, A.C., R.R. Faden, and D. Federman, eds. 1994. Women and health research: Ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lyerly, A.D., L.M. Mitchell, E.M. Armstrong, L.H. Harris, R. Kukla, M. Kuppermann, and M. Little. 2009. Risk and the pregnant body. Hastings Center Report 39(6):34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyerly, A.D., M.O. Little, and R. Faden. 2008. Pregnancy and clinical research. Hastings Center Report 38(6):53.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2006. Committee opinion #352: Innovative practice: Ethical guidelines. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108(6):1589–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    DeBruin, D. 1994. Justice and the inclusion of women in clinical studies: A conceptual framework. In Women and health research: Ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, vol 2, eds. A. Mastroianni, R. Faden, and D. Federman D. Workshop and Commissioned Papers, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, pp. 127–150.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenwaks, Z., and K. Bedikson. 2007. Further evidence of the safety of assisted reproductive technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:5709–5710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manipalviratn, S., A. DeCherney, and J. Segars. 2009. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 91:305–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reefhuis, J., M.A. Honein, L.A. Schieve, A. Correa, C.A. Hobbs, S.A. Rasmusses, and the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. 2008. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Human Reproduction 24:360–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kolata, G. 2009. Picture emerging on genetic risks of IVF. New York Times, 17 Feb 2009.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Myers, E.R., D.C. McCrory, A.A. Mills, T.M. Price, G.K. Swamy, J. Tantibhedhyangkul, J.M. Wu, and D.B. Matchar. 2008. Effectiveness of assisted reproductive technology. Evidence Report Technology Assessment May(167):1–195.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lyerly, A.D., M.O. Little, and R. Faden. 2008. The second wave: Responsible inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2):5–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chambers, C.D., J.E. Polifka, and J.M. Friedman. 2008. Drug safety in pregnant women and their babies: Ignorance not bliss. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 83(1):181–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Little, M., A.D. Lyerly, and R. Faden. 2009. Pregnant women and medical research: A moral imperative. Bioethics Forum 2:60–65.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lyerly, A.D., M.O. Little, and R. Faden. 2009. The national children’s study: A golden opportunity to advance the health of Pregnant women. American Journal of Public Health 99:1742–1745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heilman, M. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues 57:657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valian, V. 2000. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carnes, M., and C. Bland. 2007. A challenge to academic health centers in the National Institutes of Health to prevent unintended gender bias in the selection of Clinical and Translational Science Award leaders. Academic Medicine 82(2):202–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stone, P. 2007. Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carnes, M., G. Vandenbosche, P. Agatisa, A. Hirschfeld, A. Dan, J.L.F. Shaver, D. Murasco, and M. McLaughlin. 2001. Using women’s health research to develop women leaders in academic health sciences: The national centers of excellence in women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine 10(1):39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fels, A. 2004. Necessary dreams: Ambition in women’s changing lives. New York, NY: Random House, 9.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Conrad, P., P. Carr, S. Knight, M.R. Renfrew, M.B. Dunn, and L. Pololi. 2010. Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine. Journal of Womens Health 19(4):799–805.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goodin, R.E. 1985. Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fernandez Lynch, H. 2008. Conflicts of conscience in health care: An institutional compromise. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Charo, A. 2005. The celestial fire of conscience – refusing to deliver medical care. New England Journal of Medicine 352:2471–2473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2007. Committee Opinion 385: The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110(5):1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Savulescu, J. 2006. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 332(7536):294–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Curlin, F.A. 2008. Patient Rights vs. doctor conscience. Grand Rapids, MI: DeVos Medical Ethics Colloquy.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law, 73 Fed. Reg. 78,072, 78,073 (Dec. 19, 2008) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 88).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Walker, J. 2009. The Bush administration’s midnight provider refusal rule: Upsetting the emerging balance in state pharmacist refusal laws. Houston Law Review (46):939–974.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    National Women’s Law Center. 2008. What are some key organizations saying about the proposed HHS rule? Available at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/keyorgsonhhsrule.pdf.
  53. 53.
    American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. 2007. Report 6-A-07: Physician objection to treatment and individual patient discrimination (Resolution 5, A-06).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    UK General Medical Council. 2008, Mar. Personal beliefs and medical practice: Guidance for doctors. Available at http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/personal_beliefs.asp#1.
  55. 55.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. 2009. Policy statement – Physician refusal to provide information or treatment on the basis of claims of conscience. Pediatrics 124(6):1689–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stout, D. 2009. Obama set to undo “conscience” rule for health workers. New York Times, 27 Feb 2009.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    National Women’s Law Center. 2011. HHS Rescinds Portions of HHS Rule that Threatened Women’s Health. Available at http://www.nwlc.org/resource/hhs-rescinds-portions-health-care-denial-rule-threatened-women%E2%80%99s-health#HHS%20PDF.
  58. 58.
    Dresser, R.S. 1994. Freedom of conscience, professional responsibility, and access to abortion. Freedom of conscience, professional responsibility, and access to abortion. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics. 22(3):280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rooks, J. 1997. Midwifery and childbirth in America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Executive Board. 2007, May. Statement of Policy: Home births in the United States.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    American Medical Association House of Delegates. 2008. Resolution A-05, 208. Statement on home deliveries. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/205.doc
  62. 62.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. 2011. Committee opinion #476: Planned home birth. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117(2):425–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Medicine and Center for BioethicsUniversity of North Carolina School of MedicineChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations