In 1971, A Physician Named Thomas Percival Wrote New Professional
764 WordsMar 27, 20174 Pages
In 1971, a physician named Thomas Percival wrote new professional codes, most of which are now the basis of modern codes. He had written these codes in an attempt to settle a dispute between three groups of medical specialists, that took place in Manchester England. The dispute was between physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries, the codes written contained information pertaining to the duties of physician to one another, to patients, and to society, along with the patient 's’ duties to physicians and of society to physicians. The statements Mr. Percival wrote became the basis for the United States first code written in 1847 by the American Medical Association. These first codes emphasized how the main/primary duty of the physician is…show more content…
There are also times in which doctors have forewarned of disapproval from society but were ignored and problems ensued.
The Science Reference Center states, “The famous scientist warned that this was “a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. [this was a quote from Dr. James Watson in 1971]”” (Daniel Cohen 1). Dr. Watson was referring to his co-discovery of the structure of DNA, he believed that due to this new found information leading scientific and medical communities to be able to clone human beings that it should be shown to the public/society and have their opinions gathered on the sensitive subject. For many years there had been no general agreement/consensus on the subject even after his warning until the appearance of Dolly (this was a name which newspaper companies and researchers used when explaining cloning, some people believed it was an actual human while others it was a different mammal like a sheep) the idea was rarely even discussed. Nancy Duff, a professor who worked where the Dolly cloning, allegedly, happened stated that “six years ago I reacted to an essay on the ethics of cloning by asking why anyone would waste time pondering the moral implications of something that could