Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modesty) Volume 115

 Oops! I just noticed that the title of Volume 114 was wrong  (missed " Formally Patient Modesty) and didn ' t follow the recent Volumes correct sequence titles.  I hope that error didn ' t prevent visitors to join our conversations. With this Volume, we are back to our correct title which continues the specific " modesty " issue which started this discussion from 2005. Obviously patient modesty and its apparent ignorance by some members of the medical profession, Bantering ' s suggestion to enlarge the scope and thus title to " Dignity " was certainly important when discussing how the medical system interacts with their patients.I would like to continue a discussion I began on Volume 114 and to which JF responded: This was followed by another issue I presented related to citizen ' s freedom in self-decision making. ..Maurice.Continue on.I want to present here a general issue which stimulated me which I read on a clinical ethics listserv. It led me to consider the issue about whether employers had or should have a public health responsibility to require their employees, particularly those who interact with patients or closely with the public to accept being vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine or, if one their refusal being removed from their occupation. Is the employer responsible for the health of their employees and to the public who are exposed to those employees? ..Maurice.JF said...I ' ll let you know if I ' m required to get vaccinated. I ' ve been ...
Source: Bioethics Discussion Blog - Category: Medical Ethics Source Type: blogs