Flexner's ethical oversight reprised? Contemporary medical education and the health impacts of corporate globalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abraham Flexner's famous reports of 1910 and 1912, Medical Education in the United States and Canada and Medical Education in Europe, were written to assist the development of a positive response in university curricula to a revolution in understanding about the scientific foundations of clinical medicine. Flexner pointed out many deficiencies in medical education that retain contemporary resonance. Generally underemphasised in Flexner's reports, however, were recommendations promoting a firm understanding of and commitment to medical ethics as a basis of medical professionalism. Indeed, Flexner's praise for the scholastic basic of German medical education appeared somewhat ironic when the ethical inadequacies of prominent Nazi doctors were revealed at the Nuremberg Trials. CORPORATE GLOBALISATION AND ITS IMPACT ON MEDICAL PROFESSIONALISM: This article suggests that contemporary medical educators, like Flexner, may be at risk of inadequately addressing a major challenge to evolving medical professionalism. Medical ethics, health law and even the international right to health are now increasingly emphasised in medical curricula. The same cannot be said, however, of lobbying principles arising from the structures of corporate globalisation, although these are rapidly becoming an even more dominant force in shaping medical practice around the globe. Conclusion Today it is the normative tension between medical ethics, health law and international human rights on the one hand and the lobbying principles and strategies of corporate globalisation that must urgently become the focus of major recommendations for reshaping the teaching of medical professionalism. Suggestions are made as to how this might practically be achieved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".