Discretionary power, lies, and broken trust: justification and discomfort.

N Potter
{"title":"Discretionary power, lies, and broken trust: justification and discomfort.","authors":"N Potter","doi":"10.1007/BF00489679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper explores the relationship between the bonds of practitioner/patient trust and the notion of a justified lie. The intersection of moral theories on lying which prioritize right action with institutional discretionary power allows practitioners to dismiss, or at least not take seriously enough, the harm done when a patient's trust is betrayed. Even when a lie can be shown to be justified, the trustworthiness of the practitioner may be called into question in ways that neither theories of right action nor contemporary discourse in health care attends to adequately. I set out features of full trustworthiness along Aristotelian lines.</p>","PeriodicalId":77444,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine","volume":"17 4","pages":"329-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00489679","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between the bonds of practitioner/patient trust and the notion of a justified lie. The intersection of moral theories on lying which prioritize right action with institutional discretionary power allows practitioners to dismiss, or at least not take seriously enough, the harm done when a patient's trust is betrayed. Even when a lie can be shown to be justified, the trustworthiness of the practitioner may be called into question in ways that neither theories of right action nor contemporary discourse in health care attends to adequately. I set out features of full trustworthiness along Aristotelian lines.

自由裁量权、谎言和失信:正当理由和不安。
本文探讨了医生/病人信任的纽带和合理谎言的概念之间的关系。关于说谎的道德理论优先考虑正确的行为和制度上的自由裁量权,这两者的交叉使得医生们忽视,或者至少没有足够认真地对待病人的信任被背叛所造成的伤害。即使谎言可以被证明是正当的,从业者的可信度也可能受到质疑,而正确行动理论和当代医疗保健话语都没有充分考虑到这一点。我按照亚里士多德的思路列出了完全可信的特征。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信