The promises and limitations of codes of medical ethics as instruments of policy change.

Codes of medical ethics (codes) are part of a longstanding tradition in which physicians publicly state their core values and commitments to patients, peers, and the public. However, codes are not static. Using the historical evolution of the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics as an illustrative case, we argue that codes are living, socio-historically situated documents that comprise a mix of prescriptive and aspirational content. Reflecting their socio-historical situation, we can expect the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic to prompt calls to revise codes. Indeed, Alex John London has argued in favour of specific modifications to the World Medical Association's International Code of Medical Ethics (which has since been revised) in light of moral and scientific failures that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responding to London, we address the more general question: should codes be modified to reflect lessons drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic or future such upheavals? We caution that codes face limitations as instruments of policy change because they are inherently interpretive and 'multivocal', that is, they usually underdetermine or provide more than one answer to the question, 'What should I do now?' Nonetheless, as both prescriptive and aspirational documents, codes also serve as tools for reflection and deliberation-collective practices that are necessary to engaging with and addressing the moral and scientific uncertainties inherent to medicine.

Analysis of medical malpractice claims to improve quality of care: Cautionary remarks.

Medical malpractice claims can be analysed to gain insights aimed at improving quality of care. However, using medical malpractice claims in medical research raises epistemological and methodological concerns related to certain features of the litigation process. Medical research should therefore approach medical malpractice claims with caution. Taking one recent study as a an example, this article insists on three areas of concern: (a) the quantity of legal materials available for analysis; (b) the content of the legal materials available for analysis; and (c) the ways in which the content of the legal materials should be analysed and the types of inferences that it can support. The article concludes with general recommendations for future medical research that would incorporate medical malpractice claims. These recommendations centre around recognizing the qualitative dimension of legal reasoning.