美国眼科领域的伦理差距。

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2024-09-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S475660
David J Browning
{"title":"美国眼科领域的伦理差距。","authors":"David J Browning","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S475660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To highlight gaps in the professional ethics of ophthalmology.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Presentation of problematic cases in ophthalmologic ethics with juxtaposition of ethical, legal, and conscientious viewpoints informed by relevant literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>What is legal, ethical, and conscientious overlap but are not identical. Professional ethical guidelines, when they exist, are stricter than what the law requires, but are silent on several contemporary controversies. Conscientious guidelines can vary from loosest to strictest as they apply to individuals with wide variability. The relationship of ophthalmology to society changes, and ethical guidelines lag for some of the interactions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The rules of ethics for ophthalmology need to be updated and evidence of activity and oversight made public. Failure to do so invites greater external regulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11385682/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Gaps in Ophthalmology in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"David J Browning\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OPTH.S475660\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To highlight gaps in the professional ethics of ophthalmology.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Presentation of problematic cases in ophthalmologic ethics with juxtaposition of ethical, legal, and conscientious viewpoints informed by relevant literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>What is legal, ethical, and conscientious overlap but are not identical. Professional ethical guidelines, when they exist, are stricter than what the law requires, but are silent on several contemporary controversies. Conscientious guidelines can vary from loosest to strictest as they apply to individuals with wide variability. The relationship of ophthalmology to society changes, and ethical guidelines lag for some of the interactions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The rules of ethics for ophthalmology need to be updated and evidence of activity and oversight made public. Failure to do so invites greater external regulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11385682/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S475660\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S475660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:强调眼科职业道德方面的不足:透视法:介绍眼科伦理中存在问题的案例,并根据相关文献将伦理、法律和良知观点并列:结果:法律、道德和良知的内容相互重叠,但又不尽相同。职业道德准则(如果有的话)比法律要求更严格,但对当代的一些争议保持沉默。良知准则从最宽松到最严格不等,因为它们适用于个体,差异很大。眼科与社会的关系在不断变化,而道德准则在某些互动中显得滞后:结论:眼科伦理规则需要更新,活动和监督的证据需要公开。如果不这样做,就会招致更多的外部监管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ethical Gaps in Ophthalmology in the United States.

Purpose: To highlight gaps in the professional ethics of ophthalmology.

Design: Perspective.

Methods: Presentation of problematic cases in ophthalmologic ethics with juxtaposition of ethical, legal, and conscientious viewpoints informed by relevant literature.

Results: What is legal, ethical, and conscientious overlap but are not identical. Professional ethical guidelines, when they exist, are stricter than what the law requires, but are silent on several contemporary controversies. Conscientious guidelines can vary from loosest to strictest as they apply to individuals with wide variability. The relationship of ophthalmology to society changes, and ethical guidelines lag for some of the interactions.

Conclusion: The rules of ethics for ophthalmology need to be updated and evidence of activity and oversight made public. Failure to do so invites greater external regulation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ocular Surface Disease and Dry Eye Severity in Glaucoma Patients at Urban Private Eye Care Centres in Malaysia. Association Between Particulate Matter Pollutants and Ophthalmology Visits for Ocular Surface Irritation and Allergy. The Cutting Efficiency of a Hybrid Phacoemulsification Tip Using High and Low Intraocular Pressure Settings in Different Grades of Cataract. Comparison of Large Language Models in Diagnosis and Management of Challenging Clinical Cases. Enhancing OCT Reliability: The Role of Eye-Tracking in Achieving Consistent Retinal Measurements [Letter].
×
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