Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS AR0xCEE8. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Recent scholarship argues that successful international medical collaboration depends crucially on improving cross-cultural understanding. To this end, this study analyzes recent writings on medical ethics by physicians in two countries actively participating in global medicine, Thailand and the United States. Articles (133 ; published 2004-2008) from JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand are analyzed to inductively build a portrait of two discursive ethical cultures. Frameworks of moral reasoning are identified across and within the two groups, with a focus on what authority (religion, law, etc.) is invoked to define and evaluate ethical problems. How might similarities and differences in ethical paradigms reflect the countries'historical "semi-colonial" relationship, shed light on debates about Eastern vs. Western bioethics, and facilitate or hinder contemporary cross-national communication ? Findings demonstrate substantial overlap in Thai and American doctors'vocabulary, points of reference, and topics covered, though only Thai doctors emphasize national interests and identity. American authors display a striking homogeneity in styles of moral reasoning, embracing a secular, legalistic, deontological ethics that generally eschews discussion of religion, personal character, or national culture. Among Thai authors, there is a schism in ethical styles : while some hew closely to the secular, deontological model, others embrace a virtue ethics that liberally cites Buddhist principles and emphasizes the role of doctors'good character. These two approaches may represent opposing reactions-assimilation and resistance, respectively-to Western influence. The current findings undermine the stereotype of Western individualism versus Eastern collectivism. Implications for cross-national dialog are discussed.
|