Wisdom, casuistry, and the goal of reproductive counseling
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (3):281-289 (2002)
| Abstract | Reproductive counseling includes counseling of prospective parents by obstetricians, clinical geneticists, and genetic counselors regarding, for example, the use of assisted reproductive technologies, prenatal testing, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Two different views on wisdom and the goal of reproductive counseling are analyzed. According to the first view, the goal of reproductive counseling is to help prospective parents reach a wise decision. A specific course of action is recommended by the counselor in contrast to other possible alternatives. According to the second view, the goal of reproductive counseling is not to help prospective parents reach a wise decision but to help them reach their own decision wisely. It is the prospective parents who should make the decision, and it is their value commitments that should be decisive. It is argued that the second approach is to be preferred to the first. It combines respect for autonomy with a recognition of the need for assistance in decision-making. Both the first and second views relate the goal of reproductive counseling to wisdom. A problem is, however, what wisdom more precisely means â there are many different views. A casuistic view of wisdom is investigated. This view roughly defines wisdom as practical prudence in dealing with particular cases. What characterizes a casuistic decision-making method is elaborated in more detail. Applied to the second view, a casuistic view of wisdom implies that the counselor should encourage prospective parents to take into consideration the nature of the particular problem at hand, the context of the problem, their own individual identities, their personal value commitments, and various alternative perspectives, values and arguments | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMark Yarborough, Joan A. Scott & Linda K. Dixon (1989). The Role of Beneficence in Clinical Genetics: Non-Directive Counseling Reconsidered. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 10 (2).
Sonia M. Suter (1998). Value Neutrality and Nondirectiveness: Comments on "Future Directions in Genetic Counseling". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):161-163.
Mary Terrell White (1998). Decision-Making Through Dialogue: Reconfiguring Autonomy in Genetic Counseling. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (1):5-19.
Jeffrey E. Barnett (2009). Ethics Desk Reference for Counselors. American Counseling Association.
S. Matthew Liao (2008). Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):973-991.
Will Angelette (2002). Rationality, Emotion, and Belief Revision: Waller's Move Beyond CBT & REBT. International Journal of Philosophical Practice 1 (3).
Sara Goering (2009). Postnatal Reproductive Autonomy: Promoting Relational Autonomy and Self-Trust in New Parents. Bioethics 23 (1):9-19.
Sara Waller (2003). Philosophical Counseling. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 10 (2):23-31.
Véronique Fournier, Denis Berthiau, Julie D.’Haussy & Philippe Bataille (forthcoming). Access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies in France: The Emergence of the Patients' Voice. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.
Janet Malek (2013). Use or Refuse Reproductive Genetic Technologies: Which Would a 'Good Parent' Do? Bioethics 27 (2):59-64.
M. Carmela Epright (2003). Philosophical Counseling. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 10 (2):17-22.
Philip G. Peters (2004). How Safe is Safe Enough?: Obligations to the Children of Reproductive Technology. OUP Oxford.
Annette Patterson & Martha Satz (2002). Genetic Counseling and the Disabled: Feminism Examines the Stance of Those Who Stand at the Gate. Hypatia 17 (3):118-142.
Timothy F. Murphy (2005). Gay Science: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Sexual Orientation of Children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10 (Sup. 1):102-106.
Michael Davis (2010). Licensing, Philosophical Counselors, and Barbers. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (2):225-236.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-08-31Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
