We have a commonalty and a common dream Book

4.5 stars. I would say this book is indispensable for those interested in medical ethics, as the authors’ four-norms (Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Respect for Autonomy, and Justice) approach has become basically the universal starting point for at least American and British applied medical ethics. Unless you’re a fellow philosopher arguing about the fitness of their approach, if you’re involved in medical ethics (or if you’ve taken a human subjects research training course, for that matter) you’ve been exposed to their approach. The book is very thorough and thoughtful, seems exceptionally balanced in addressing the criticisms of other bioethical philosophers—though I’m not a philosopher myself, so I didn’t exactly follow all of the specifics of those sections — and is also refreshingly balanced in its discussion of especially controversial topics in medical ethics, such as abortion and physician-assisted suicide. On these “tough topics” the authors make clear where they stand, but also very clear that reasonable people can disagree and don’t belittle those who do.

Except for the last chapter (specifically about competing philosophical approaches and so not aimed at non-philosophers) I found the writing clear and relatively easy to follow. The style is fairly dry, unsurprisingly, which is why I read it over many months. Not the most enjoyable thing I ever read, per se, but definitely enlightening and thought-provoking. Most people could probably get away with a la detailed read than I gave it too (more of a skim). The notes are also chock-full of references to basically every important medical ethics paper and legal case, and some might argue the book is worth it for the reference list alone.

It’s the seminal book in the field for a reason, and interested folks should definitely be familiar with it, even if you don’t necessarily read every word.