Ethics/Humanities/Health Law

Small Group Discussion

Friday, Jan. 17, 1:30-2:20

Bill and Maria,

Thanks for helping out with this session. The discussion sections are supposed to run from 1:30-2:20. Then the students are supposed to reconvene in Theatre B at 2:30 for a session with John Crellin that will run until 3. Bill is in Room 3454 (Nursing). Maria is in Theatre B.

Attached is a set of notes John Crellin prepared for this session. The students have all received copies of this. It raises a lot of issues and I don’t expect that they will all be discussed in any one section. You should focus on whatever seems most interesting to you and the students in your group.

Here’s my take on the main questions raised by the notes:

1. To what extent should physicians be involved in attempts to shape public policy?

2. What is involved in ‘considering first the well-being of the patient’? Does this mean physicians’ attention should always (or almost always) be dedicated to caring for particular, individual patients or should caring for the well-being of the patient be done, at least in part, at the societal level?

3. To what extent do physicians have a responsibility to be role models?

4. How should physicians deal with cases of conflict of interest? Does their duty to public safety override their individual interests?

Questions 1 & 2 are probably most familiar to you two, but they may also have been talked about at length in the Community Health sessions. (Still, this is a chance to discuss the ethical obligation to take community health seriously.)

If you choose to discuss it, I think you’ll find a considerable amount of interest in the third question. A number of students have brought up the issue of being a role model in discussions about their journal. It’s usually phrased in terms of whether it’s still OK for them to get drunk on George Street on the weekends (or sometimes whether they can still smoke). There seems to be quite a bit of division amongst the class on this issue, so it might make for a lively discussion.

They will also probably have a fair bit of interest in the last question, particularly if it’s phrased in terms of a clash between their self-interest and promoting public health. You might want to touch on the Nancy Olivieri case if you deal with this point.

Finally, regarding question 2, you might find some interest in the question of whether physicians’ obligations go beyond even the societal level in the sense that physicians might be obligated to do what they can to care for people in developing countries (perhaps by going there to provide treatment or perhaps by lobbying for aid to those countries). This issue was raised by a student during a recent class, but we lacked the time to deal with it there. You might pose the question of whether the students should feel morally obligated to spend some time volunteering overseas or working with Doctors without Borders. My guess is that this would lead to an interesting discussion.

Thanks again,

Andrew