On Pellegrino and Thomasma's Admission of a Dilemma and Inconsistency

Abstract

Edmund Pellegrino and David Thomasma's writings have had a worldwide impact on discourse about the philosophy of medicine, professionalism, bioethics, healthcare ethics, and patients' rights. Given their works' importance, it is surprising that commentators have ignored their admission of an unresolved and troubling dilemma and inconsistency in their theory. The purpose of this article is to identify and state what problems worried them and to consider possible solutions. It is argued that their dilemma stems from their concerns about how to justify professional rules restricting colleagues from performing acts they view as direct, active, and formal (intentional) killings, such as physician-assisted suicide, mercy killing, and abortion. It is further argued that their inconsistency is that they both assert and deny that professional colleagues should not use their moral or theological values to impose professional restrictions on other colleagues without adequate philosophical grounds. At risk are their arguments about the nature of an internal morality for medicine, a secular and multicultural basis for medical ethics, and a nonarbitrary way to determine what acts fall outside the ends of medicine. These are arguments they claim also apply to other healthcare professions. The article begins with a brief overview of their key positions to provide the context in which they make their admission.

Keywords: David C. Thomasma; Edmund D. Pellegrino; Elizabeth Bouvia; William Bartling; abortion; aid in dying; beneficence-in-trust; best interest standard; bioethics; internal morality; medical ethics; mercy killing; patients’ rights; philosophy of medicine; physician-assisted suicide; professional ethics.