Suchergebnisse

The ethical problems of the medical profession stem from the extraordinarily high value placed on life, well- being, and freedom from pain in our culture; from the neces sarily intimate relation of doctor and patient; from the strains of private practice, a small entrepreneur role, in a society of big government, big business, big labor, and big cities; from contradictory social values in matters of religion, sex, and right of privacy in the individual's own body; from failures of com munication between the profession and the public as to the na ture of medicine and the limits of science; and from the con flict over change in the organization of medical service. The profession has fought its battles with notable success on most fronts, but without a fully satisfactory answer to the tough problem of maintaining quality. Medical society discipline and malpractice suits have not provided effective enforcement. Isolated individual practice is diminishing. Group practice, certification of advanced training, widened hospital-staff mem bership, and improved hospital certification provide new disci plines to enforce quality. The language of medicine's codes and of the politico-economic debate have contributed to a pub lic image of guild restrictionism and self-protection. Though impossible to measure, change appears to have been, in fact, to marked improvement in quality and protection of the patient against negligent, incompetent, or exploitative medical service. The introduction of compulsory sickness insurance and social ized medicine raises the new ethical issue of the doctor's strike.

The ethical problems of the Med profession stem from the extraordinarily high value placed on life, wellbeing, & freedom from pain in our culture; from the necessarily intimate relation of MD & patient; from the strains of private practice, a small entrepreneur role, in a society of big gov, big business, big labor, & big cities; & from contradictory soc values in matters of religion, sex, & right of privacy in the individual's own body; from failures of medicine & the limits of sci; & from the conflict over change in the org of Med service. The profession has fought its battles with notable success on most fronts, but without a fully satisfactory answer to the tough problem of maintaining quality. Med society discipline & malpractice suits have not provided effective enforcement. Isolated individual practice is diminishing. Group practice, certification of advanced training, widened hosp-staff membership, & improved hos certification provide new disci- ; plines to enforce quality. The language of medicine's codes &,of the politico-econ debate have contributed to a public image of guild restrictionism & self-protection. Though impossible to measure, change appears to have been, in fact, to marked improvement in quality & protection of the patient against negligent, incompetent, or exploitative Med service. The introduction of compulsory sickness insurance & soc'ized medicine raises the new ehical issue of the MD's strike. HA.

A group theory of American politics was one of the earliest and remains one of the most systematic schemes for studying the political system. The analysis of pressure groups has contributed to our understanding of the many patterns of interaction by which the individual is related to politics in addi tion to his intermittent role as voter. Nevertheless, the litera ture of political groups has been highly critical. Systematic research is needed to build a working theory of how the member sees his several group relations, how group leaders are and may be held to account, and what the consequences of pressure poli tics are for coherence, continuity, and precision of public policy. Comparative studies of interests in different political systems today promise important advances in interest-group theory.

A discipline, like an individual, may in some measure be known by the dilemmas it keeps, or more properly by the manner in which it keeps them.A central conceptual controversy, probably inescapable for political scientists because of their disciplinary heritage, is that involved in perceiving uniformities in behavior, describing recurring patterns, identifying the determinants and yet reconciling this effort and its underlying premises about the roots of behavior with the liberal, democratic faith in man's individual capacity to determine his own ends, to think rationally and to reach individual and creative decisions. On this faith rests the political structure of rights, the machinery of the democratic electorate, the party system and the values of the constitutional democratic state whose political process we are concerned to describe and analyze. Cultural anthropologists, social psychologists of many disciplinary schools, hard-boiled "realists" in political science, have recently drawn back from determinist or whole-heartedly relativist positions. Some are concerned that political science, in a fresh enthusiasm for empirical research, may become so engrossed with uniformities and determinants that it will obscure or abandon the normative commitments of a democratic polity.