Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):29-51 (1991)
|Abstract||This article examines the emergence of casuistical case analysis as a methodological alternative to more theory-driven approaches in bioethics research and education. Focusing on The Abuse of Casuistry by A. Jonsen and S. Toulmin, the article articulates the most characteristic features of this modernday casuistry (e.g., the priority allotted to case interpretation and analogical reasoning over abstract theory, the resemblance of casuistry to common law traditions, the ‘open texture’ of its principles, etc.) and discusses some problems with casuistry as an ‘anti-theoretical’ method. It is argued that casuistry so defined is ‘theory modest’ rather than ‘theory free’ and that ethical theory can still play a significant role in casuistical analysis; that casuistical analyses will encounter conflicting ‘deep’ interpretations of our social practices and institutions, and are therefore unlikely sources of increased social consensus on controversial bioethical questions; that its conventionalism raises questions about casuistry's ability to criticize norms embedded in the societal consensus; and that casuistry's emphasis upon analogical reasoning may tend to reinforce the individualistic nature of much bioethical writing. It is concluded that, notwithstanding these problems, casuistry represents a promising alternative to the regnant model of ‘applied ethics’ (i.e., to the ritualistic invocation of the so-called ‘principles of bioethics’). The pedagogical implications of casuistry are addressed throughout the paper and include the following recommendations: (1) use real cases, (2) make them long, richly detailed and comprehensive, (3) present complex sequences of cases, (4) stress the problem of ‘moral diagnosis’, and (5) be ever mindful of the limits of casuistical analysis. Keywords: casuistry, interpretation, methodology, pedagogy CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Albert R. Jonsen (1991). Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12 (4).
Sandra L. Borden (1999). Character as a Safeguard for Journalists Using Case-Based Ethical Reasoning. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):93-104.
David Degrazia (1992). Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):511-539.
Martin Calkins (2001). Casuistry and the Business Case Method. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
Soo Bae Kim (2009). The Formation of Kant's Casuistry and Method Problems of Applied Ethics. Kant-Studien 100 (3):332-345.
Eric B. Beresford (1996). Can Phronesis Save the Life of Medical Ethics? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 17 (3).
Kevin Wm Wildes (1994). Respondeo: Method and Content in Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):115-119.
Theo Van Willigenburg (1998). New Casuistry: What's New? Philosophical Explorations 1 (2):152 – 164.
Kevin Wm Wildes (1993). The Priesthood of Bioethics and the Return of Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1):33-49.
David E. Boeyink (1992). Casuistry: A Case-Based Methods for Journalists. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 7 (2):107 – 120.
Added to index2010-08-22
Total downloads24 ( #57,917 of 739,367 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,367 )
How can I increase my downloads?