Degree

Master of Studies in Law

Program

Studies in Law

Supervisor

Jacob Shelley

Abstract

This paper grapples with the question of whether physicians have a unique moral, ethical or professional responsibility to engage in health advocacy. If so, what are the sources of that obligation, and how is advocacy understood in this context? These questions are addressed through a critical examination of the bio-medical, ethical, and legal literature and medical professional practice standards.

This research explores emergent themes in the literature including how advocacy is conceptualized, the challenges inherent in defining the term, and the consequent difficulty teaching health advocacy in medical education. This paper also examines how the value of advocacy is represented in the literature, what professional obligations are currently in place, and how these standards intersect with perceptions of professional duty. This research also touches on the question of whether physicians are uniquely positioned to engage in health advocacy and whether their influence and social capitol creates a contractual obligation to advance and champion issues related to the social determinants of health. This paper also elucidates some of the barriers to engaging in advocacy as identified in the literature and identifies scholarship which sits in opposition to the physician’s role as health advocate for reasons including scope, competency and political influence.

The second part of this paper asks in what ways, and to what effect, have physicians used the law as a tool for health advocacy and is working in violation of the law a predeterminant of legal advocacy? Or does violating the law undermine the moral weight of the physician-advocate?

These questions are addressed through examination of two legal case studies which demonstrate the health professional’s engagement in legal advocacy. The identified case studies include R v. Morgentaler (cases where this writer would argue, a physician practiced in direct conflict with the law as a means to advocate for legal change) and Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. BC (a case arguing for privatization of public health care to address surgical wait-times).

Download

Share

COinS