The Western world has long cherished the ideal and idea of professions, of groups who, because of the special nature of their activities, "profess" themselves dedicated to moral standards that oblige them to place the good of those they serve above their own self-interest. But for several decades this pristine ideal has undergone serious erosion, and the practical and moral consequences of this erosion for society are yet to be fully examined. Is there some justification for retaining the traditional idea of a profession? The author here argues that there is such a justification and that it can be found in the nature of the human needs the professions address and the human relationships peculiar to them. These are sufficiently distinct to warrant expectations of a higher morality and a greater commitment to the good of others than in most other human activities. The argument considers (1) the forces that have contributed to the erosion of the traditional notion, (2) what a true profession is not, (3) what distinguishes a profession philosophically from other activities, and (4) where in this schema the allied health and other "new" health professions fit.