Medicine and law as model professions: the heart of the matter (and how we have missed it).

Rob Atkinson
{"title":"Medicine and law as model professions: the heart of the matter (and how we have missed it).","authors":"Rob Atkinson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article has two coordinate goals: to undergird the functionalist understanding of professionalism with classical normative theory and to advance the classical theory of civic virtue with the insights of modern social science. More specifically, this article seeks to connect classical theories about the care of the body and the soul with modern theories of market and government failure. The first step is to distinguish two kinds of professions, caring professions like medicine and public professions like law, by identifying the distinctive virtue of each. The distinctive virtue of the caring professions is single-minded commitment to those in their care, their principals, to the virtual exclusion of all other concerns; the distinctive virtue of the public professions is commitment to the common good, sometimes even at the expense of their principals' self-defined interest. The next step is to show how these two distinctive professional virtues, the one principal-protecting, the other public-protecting, branch from the same root, the common function of all proper professions: guaranteeing the delivery of socially essential but necessarily esoteric knowledge when the usual protections of both private contracts and government regulation systematically fail. The third and final step is to map out the implications of this neo-classical understanding of professionalism, beginning at its core in the paradigmatic caring and public professions of medicine and law, through putative professions that take these as their models, to the kind of republican society that places care of individuals and concern for the public welfare at the center of its value system. The result of this analysis should be not only a fuller theoretical appreciation of professionalism's proper function, but also a practical guide to professionals themselves for better service to both the individuals in their care and the common good of all humankind.</p>","PeriodicalId":73212,"journal":{"name":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","volume":"22 2","pages":"345-422"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article has two coordinate goals: to undergird the functionalist understanding of professionalism with classical normative theory and to advance the classical theory of civic virtue with the insights of modern social science. More specifically, this article seeks to connect classical theories about the care of the body and the soul with modern theories of market and government failure. The first step is to distinguish two kinds of professions, caring professions like medicine and public professions like law, by identifying the distinctive virtue of each. The distinctive virtue of the caring professions is single-minded commitment to those in their care, their principals, to the virtual exclusion of all other concerns; the distinctive virtue of the public professions is commitment to the common good, sometimes even at the expense of their principals' self-defined interest. The next step is to show how these two distinctive professional virtues, the one principal-protecting, the other public-protecting, branch from the same root, the common function of all proper professions: guaranteeing the delivery of socially essential but necessarily esoteric knowledge when the usual protections of both private contracts and government regulation systematically fail. The third and final step is to map out the implications of this neo-classical understanding of professionalism, beginning at its core in the paradigmatic caring and public professions of medicine and law, through putative professions that take these as their models, to the kind of republican society that places care of individuals and concern for the public welfare at the center of its value system. The result of this analysis should be not only a fuller theoretical appreciation of professionalism's proper function, but also a practical guide to professionals themselves for better service to both the individuals in their care and the common good of all humankind.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学和法律作为模范职业:问题的核心(以及我们是如何忽视它的)。
本文有两个协调的目标:用经典的规范理论来巩固功能主义对专业主义的理解,用现代社会科学的见解来推进经典的公民美德理论。更具体地说,本文试图将关于身体和灵魂护理的经典理论与市场和政府失灵的现代理论联系起来。第一步是区分两种职业,护理类职业,如医学和公共类职业,如法律,通过识别各自的独特美德。护理专业的独特美德是对他们所照顾的人,他们的委托人,全心全意的承诺,几乎排除了所有其他的关注;公共职业的独特美德是致力于共同利益,有时甚至不惜牺牲其负责人自我定义的利益。下一步是展示这两种不同的职业美德,一个是保护委托人,另一个是保护公众,是如何从同一个根源衍生出来的,这是所有适当职业的共同功能:当私人合同和政府监管的通常保护系统失效时,保证提供对社会至关重要但必要的深奥知识。第三步,也是最后一步,是绘制出这种新古典主义对专业主义理解的含义,从其核心的范式关怀和医学和法律等公共职业开始,通过以这些为榜样的假定职业,到那种将个人关怀和对公共福利的关注置于其价值体系中心的共和社会。这种分析的结果不仅应该是对专业精神的适当功能有更充分的理论认识,而且应该是对专业人员本身的实践指导,以便更好地为他们所照顾的个人和全人类的共同利益服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity's Pandemic Distractions. Different but Same: A Call for a Joint Pro-Active Regulation of Cross-Border Egg and Surrogacy Markets. TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD?: EXPLORING NON-DISCLOSURE OF GENETIC INFORMATION IN LIFE INSURANCE APPLICATIONS AS GROUNDS FOR POLICY RESCISSION. AMERICA NEEDS THE TREAT ACT: EXPANDING ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE MEDICATION FOR TREATING ADDICTION. FIRST Do No HARM: PROTECTING PATIENTS THROUGH IMMUNIZING HEALTH CARE WORKERS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1