While many perspectives exist on what constitutes ideal general practice, few adequately address its ethical essence. There is limited research integrating moral theory with empirical insights into the embodied ethical knowledge of general practitioners (GPs) to inform a normative framework for good general practice. This study presents an empirically grounded model of GPs’ professional morality and examines its alignment with established ethical theories to evaluate its viability as a general practice ethic. Between 2015 and 2017, we conducted observations and interviews with sixteen GPs and GP residents across healthcare centers in four Swedish regions. Using Straussian Grounded Theory, sampling began purposively and later followed theoretical guidance, with data collection, analysis, and theoretical synthesis occurring concurrently. The study’s central concept was refined through multidimensional property supplementation. One of four core concepts emerging from our theory, “the voice of the profession,” captures key motives influencing GPs’ everyday moral decision-making. It illustrates how GPs interpret situations through three professional-moral judgments: whether to focus on immediate details or adopt a broader perspective, whether to intervene or refrain, and whether to speak up or remain silent. This framing helps narrow considerations, allowing GPs to concentrate on the morally most relevant aspects of each situation. This process can be understood as responding to Løgstrup’s ethical demand, which, when filtered through a GP’s professional understanding, generates moral imperatives that may conflict with patient wishes, societal norms, or the practitioner’s self-interest. “The voice of the profession” elucidates how GPs morally frame complex clinical situations. It is coherent and robust enough to serve as a general practice ethic and offers an explanatory framework for understanding why GPs’ intuitively justified ethical decisions may remain legitimate even in the absence of broader social validation.
