On Medical Ethics (2)

Thank you for the January-March 1995 issue of Medical Ethics.

The sad fact of life is that people do not like to be lectured or taught. They prefer to learn on their own, if at all, from what they hear and see. So far as ethics are concerned there are today few who can adopt the EDP approach to engender them; Explain, Demonstrate and Eractice.

Journals such as Medical Ethics achieve only the E component to some extent and while doing so i as Dr. Reinders remarks in his letter (1), become declaratory, judgemental, didactic.

I do not doubt the intentions of your authors; I only doubt the efficacy of their efforts. It has always been difficult to persuade people to follow the right path. Buddha, Christ, Gandhi – all tried and failed. More sins have been committed

in the name of religion that anything else, perhaps all through human history. Isn’t ethics (medical, legal, fiscal or any other) included in the wider definition of religion? And if people refuse to be religious (not ritualistic) what reason is there to hope that they will agree to be ethical?

Be that as it may, I admire the zeal and industry of your team. You may think I am sceptical. I am not. I am hopeful. But only if each one of your member adopts a very modest, simple goal: to persuade just one medical person to practice ethically in letter and spirit, in one year. If they succeed in this, you have reason to go on. If they don’t, you may have to reconsider the whole project.

What do you say?