But the balance is constantly imperiled by the fact that their scientific training is explicit, detailed, and specialized, while their humanistic and moral training is left largely to example and symbols transmitted to them without explicit reflection or criticism. Physicians thus assume that, while science is exact, ethical discourse is vague, subjective, a matter of opinion. On the one hand, this assumption leads to a kind of moral skepticism and on the other to a dogmatic rigidity, since no method of dialogue or research for critical consensus is available. Because the motivation of physicians is so bound up with their sense of vocation, autonomy, and competence, they resent interference in their own decisions. They believe that only the physicians are in the position to make medico-ethical judgments and they can be relied upon to be decent and humane in these decisions.
Physicians are often resentful that so much responsibility is laid on their shoulders.
They cannot understand why a wider sociological, religious, psychological, or interrelational view should be their responsibility. Physicians believe such concerns are someone else's business. None of these attitudes is wrong. Undoubtedly they are the result of the medical professional's need to live by a clear motivation, with manageable responsibilities, and to have sufficient freedom for action and personal judgement. However, if they result in a closed attitude which renders the physician incapable of learning from others or sharing in a team effort to improve ethical treatment of health problems on a social scale, they are harmful biases that may lead to gravely mistaken ethical judgment.