The UDHR and the Limits of Medical Ethics
The Case of South Africa
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12440394 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Leonard Rubenstein (0000-0002-6775-198X, corresponding author), Leslie London (0000-0003-1297-2758, University of Cape Town) |
| Year | 1998 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 160-160 |
| Publication date | 1998-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health and Human Rights (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1079-0969 • E-ISSN: 2150-4113 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/4065306 |
| PMID | 10343300 |
| OpenAlex | W2411055822 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
The leadership of South Africa's medical profession remained silent in the face of gross human rights violations by the apartheid government or affirmatively defended the government's conduct. While there were strong cultural and economic reasons for this alliance between leaders of the medical profession and the apartheid state, the leadership also embraced western medical ethics. As a result, when confronted about its conduct, it continually sought to defend its behavior on traditional ethical grounds. This article looks at the nature of that "ethical defense" in three areas, torture in detention, racial discrimination in health services, and breach of confidentiality in the case of political activists. The article concludes that the rules of medical ethics left too great a space for making such a defense and urges that ethical rules consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be adopted
Alliance · Confidentiality · Declaration · Face (sociological concept · Government (linguistics · Human rights · Medical ethics · Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · State (computer science · Torture · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Ethics in medical practice · Law · Patient Dignity and Privacy
| Citations per year | 0.12 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2000 - 2008 (9) |
| Highly cited | No |