Rights and Responsibilities in Medical Science

Abstract

It seems to me that there might be something worthwhile to be gained if I, a medical scientist, clinician, and teacher, try to engage in dialogue with modern Luddites who, despite, or perhaps because of their ignorance of the practicum of clinical medicine, seem intent on destroying not only the evident advantages that modern medical technology has provided for the common weal, but also on inhibiting the potential for future advantages that will accrue to mankind if technological and scientific enquiry does not become totally enwrapped in a jungle of bureaucratic and moralistic red tape. The thicket of do’s and don’t’s elaborated by self-appointed bioethicists and politically-appointed legislators threatens to strangle us. Franz Ingelfinger sounded a note of concern in 1975, with his paper on “The Unethical in Medical Ethics”, [2], and, to quote Tom Beauchamp, “Philosophers interested in public policy would do well to start in the midst of policy problems” ([1], p. 60). I will paraphrase that, and say, “philosophers, lawyers and legislators interested in medical problems and the application of medical research, would do well to start in the midst of clinical problems by participating in the activities of emergency rooms and intensive care units.” Ever since Plato, philosophers have been reluctant to get their hands dirty for fear of polluting their minds. The ivory tower is a perfectly valid option, but it obliges one to refrain from advising on the conduct of practical affairs. This has been recognized throughout the centuries. But today, in the area of biomedical ethics and the morality of control and regulation of biomedical research, some speculators are assuming rights of control without the formal responsibility for the practical results of their speculations.