Abstract

Parsa-Parsi et al assert that the International Code of Medical Ethics (ICoME) provides a professional standard that overrides conflicting national legal norms.1 While this claim is made in the context of laws that require doctors to participate in ‘acts of torture, or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading practices and punishments’ (para10 of ICoME), the underlying premise that medical ethics supersedes law requires scrutiny. It is clear that medical ethics and law are linked inextricably, but there is unresolved debate about the sequence of this interaction: should ethics shape law; or is it the converse? Important principles, notably respect for patients’ autonomy, have arisen from case law and subsequently been adopted into medical ethics. As pointed out by Beauchamp and Childress, it is only ‘since the mid-1970s (that) the primary justification advanced for requirements of informed consent has been to protect autonomous choice’ (pg.118).2 Whereas, the legal obligation to respect autonomy can be traced to the early 1900s, in the landmark US case of Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital : ‘Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body’.1 Moreover, the term informed consent was born in law: it was coined …