[讨论论坛医学伦理学。]B2。医生的誓言:还有效吗?对各种职业道德誓言文本的批判性观察]。

Diskussionsforum medizinische Ethik Pub Date : 1990-07-01
W U Eckart
{"title":"[讨论论坛医学伦理学。]B2。医生的誓言:还有效吗?对各种职业道德誓言文本的批判性观察]。","authors":"W U Eckart","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Topicality, expressiveness and universal validity of current ethical vows in medicine are compared critically. Instead of outmoded formula Pellegrino's and Thomasma's suggestion for a new and mainly at patient autonomy-oriented vow is favored.</p>","PeriodicalId":77110,"journal":{"name":"Diskussionsforum medizinische Ethik","volume":" 2","pages":"3 p. following 365"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Discussion forum medical ethics. B2. Physician's oath: still current? Critical observations on various professional ethical oath texts].\",\"authors\":\"W U Eckart\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Topicality, expressiveness and universal validity of current ethical vows in medicine are compared critically. Instead of outmoded formula Pellegrino's and Thomasma's suggestion for a new and mainly at patient autonomy-oriented vow is favored.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diskussionsforum medizinische Ethik\",\"volume\":\" 2\",\"pages\":\"3 p. following 365\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diskussionsforum medizinische Ethik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diskussionsforum medizinische Ethik","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

摘要

对当前医学伦理誓言的话题性、表达性和普遍有效性进行了批判性的比较。Pellegrino和Thomasma提出的以病人自主为主要导向的新方案更受欢迎,而不是过时的方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Discussion forum medical ethics. B2. Physician's oath: still current? Critical observations on various professional ethical oath texts].

Topicality, expressiveness and universal validity of current ethical vows in medicine are compared critically. Instead of outmoded formula Pellegrino's and Thomasma's suggestion for a new and mainly at patient autonomy-oriented vow is favored.

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
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