What is it about?
This article examines the tendency for medical ethics decisions to conform to the majority opinion, called the "ochlocratic trap." This groupthink undermined ethics in infamous studies like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments that were initially accepted. The author advocates using scientific principles like gathering evidence to strengthen medical ethics.
Featured Image
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This article highlights a genuine problem in medical ethics where decision-making can be overly swayed by popular views rather than what is ethically correct. Given medicine's history of unethical practices that were initially accepted, the article provides an important warning about blindly following the crowd. It offers solutions to strengthen ethics through more rigorous, evidence-based approaches.
Perspectives
As a medical ethicist, I found this article raised excellent points about the pitfalls of ochlocratic decision-making in healthcare ethics. I've witnessed scenarios where ethics seemed to take a backseat to majority opinion. The proposed solutions could lead to better ethical deliberations, like gathering evidence and analyzing different perspectives systematically. Medicine must uphold timeless moral values, not simply bend to the latest trends. This article will make an essential contribution toward more principled medical ethics.
Thomas F Heston MD
University of Washington
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The Ochlocratic Trap in Bioethics, Journal of Clinical Medical Research, October 2023, Athenaeum Scientific Publishers,
DOI: 10.46889/jcmr.2023.4305.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
