On Oct. 19, National Taiwan University Hospital denied a request from Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) son-in-law, to return to his job. saying he had violated medical ethics. But isn't medical ethics a required course for Taiwanese medical students? Is something wrong with our medical training?
Before the hospital explained its position, a lot of people suspected that it had reached its decision on Chao as a defense against media pressure and public criticism. Chao's case made many of us in the medical profession feel that merely providing medical ethics training is not enough. Without the inculcation of the most basic social values and ethics, similar cases could occur again.
Some may ask why doctors should spend their whole career under the weight of medical ethics. The 12 doctors who leaked Taichung Mayor Jason Hu's (
If a doctor commits a mistake, the first thing we should ask is whether it was committed during the course of administering medical treatment. Did he or she take advantage of his authority as a doctor or political or business connections to gain unjust benefits from a patient, or even accept a gift of money? Was he or she guilty of deviant behavior in the place of treatment? Did the doctor violate a patient, or feign good intentions to promote medically unproven treatments or medicine? Was he or she guilty of academic plagiarism?
If any of these questions are answered in the affirmative, then he or she has of course violated medical ethics. If, however, a doctor is guilty of other moral misconduct, he or she has violated social ethics, not medical ethics.
The first principle of ethics is not to hurt others. Applying this to medical ethics, no doctor should hurt a patient. If a doctor hurts a patient and damages the image of the medical profession in the course of medical treatment, that doctor has violated medical ethics. A doctor's private mistakes, however, constitute violations of social ethics, not medical ethics.
Here is a simple example: A doctor has a fight with somebody in a ball game after work. In doing so, he has damaged the image of doctors, but has he really violated medical ethics? Or if a doctor invests in a business and then takes investors' money and runs, she may have hurt others, but has she violated medical ethics?
They are indeed guilty of betraying the principles of honesty and responsibility, but they have not necessarily violated medical ethics. Apart from having to face legal punishment, they must also face the torture of their conscience and public criticism.
But is it a violation of medical ethics if a doctor recommends some untested alternative treatment to patients? That answer is certainly "yes," just as an intellectual making a similar recommendation of such groundless treatment would have violated social ethics.
Society has extremely high expectations of doctors. Unfortunately, their image has declined in recent years. Consequently, education on medical ethics has been proposed. But will this solve the problem? Perhaps we should not criticize this naive expectation too much, but it does seem to contradict reality.
In Taiwan, where utilitarianism rules the roost, personal desire often outweighs conscience, not to mention the public's double standards. Public opinion is controlled by the media, and the public's distinction between right and wrong is surprisingly obscure. The root of the problem is blurred, and this cannot be remedied by medical ethics.
A doctor may damage the image of the medical profession by violating medical ethics, but he or she may also be disliked by the public for violating social or commercial ethics. Chao indeed shamed the medical community. The problem is not only one of medical ethics, but also of social values and civic ethics.
Taiwan needs to rebuild its fundamental values. We cannot ignore medical, social, environmental, business or civic ethics. This process must start in the home and be strengthened by our educational system. We must set a good example for our children or the problem will remain forever unresolved.
Michael Tai is a professor at Chung Shan Medical University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS