Abstract

In their article, van Gils Schmidt and Salloch defend the claim that physicians have a duty to protect the climate. The logic of the argument in broad terms is that (i) there is a relationship between climate change and the burden of disease, (ii) the healthcare sector is a significant emitter of global greenhouse gasses, thereby enhancing the burden of disease and (iii) since doctors are advocates of health and stakeholders in the healthcare sector, they have a duty to respond to climate change. The authors recognise the ‘ethical basis for the claim of healthcare professionals having a special responsibility in climate change is far from being obvious’. The theoretical framework they choose for making this tentative link more apparent is Korsgaard’s theory of practical identities. The main argument of the authors seems to be that practical identities are pluralistic—a person can identify as a physician and environmentalist simultaneously—and the normative positions attributable to these identities may come into conflict. More than that, they claim that being an environmentalist is increasingly becoming …