Scholarlink

<p>Henrik Ibsen’s <i>An Enemy of the People</i> (1882) dramatizes a physician’s discovery that his town’s spa waters are contaminated. His efforts to disclose this danger lead to a collapse of civic support, as the truth threatens the town’s economic and political interests. Beyond being a literary classic, the play serves as a case study in the ethics of public health disclosure. This article places the drama in the context of nineteenth century medical history and explores why Dr. Stockmann fails to communicate the truth effectively. Drawing on virtue ethics, public health frameworks, and organizational research, we argue that candor alone is insufficient: ethical disclosure requires courage tempered by prudence, solid evidence, community support, reciprocity, and institutional backing. Historical analogues and contemporary lessons show how verification, proportionate remedies, and clear communication channels can turn conflict into protection. In contrast to Stockmann’s final solitude, medical ethics must ensure that clinicians who sound the alarm are not left to face opposition alone but are supported in safeguarding the public good, even amid seemingly overwhelming resistance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People and the Ethics of Public Health Disclosure

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月29日

查看全文
  • Halil Tekiner,
  • Steven H. Yale,
  • Eileen S. Yale

摘要

Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People (1882) dramatizes a physician’s discovery that his town’s spa waters are contaminated. His efforts to disclose this danger lead to a collapse of civic support, as the truth threatens the town’s economic and political interests. Beyond being a literary classic, the play serves as a case study in the ethics of public health disclosure. This article places the drama in the context of nineteenth century medical history and explores why Dr. Stockmann fails to communicate the truth effectively. Drawing on virtue ethics, public health frameworks, and organizational research, we argue that candor alone is insufficient: ethical disclosure requires courage tempered by prudence, solid evidence, community support, reciprocity, and institutional backing. Historical analogues and contemporary lessons show how verification, proportionate remedies, and clear communication channels can turn conflict into protection. In contrast to Stockmann’s final solitude, medical ethics must ensure that clinicians who sound the alarm are not left to face opposition alone but are supported in safeguarding the public good, even amid seemingly overwhelming resistance.