Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Charlotte Paul Department of Preventive and
Social Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
charlotte.paul@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
| |
Introduction |
|---|
It has been claimed that the Bristol case will kill internal self regulation.1 The New Zealand experience should serve as a warning against believing that internal self regulation by the medical profession is useless and should be discarded. After the report of the New Zealand cervical cancer inquiry 11 years ago,2 which has similarities with the Bristol case, many new rules were made, some of which have the status of legal regulations, governing both research and medical practice. Yet these apparent improvements in ethical standards represent an unbalanced concentration on an external morality for medicine. Over the same time internal morality, though it had a key role in limiting the harm done to patients in the cervical cancer study, has been thoroughly neglected.
Henk ten Have has described internal morality as those values, norms,
and rules that are intrinsic to the practice of medicine.3 Internal morality arises from within a community
Read all Rapid Responses