David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):29-51 (1991)
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)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
M. F. Jonas & S. J. Thornley (2011). Smoky Rooms and Fuzzy Harms: How Should the Law Respond to Harmful Parental Practices? Public Health Ethics 4 (2):129-142.
Pascal Borry, Paul Schotsmans & Kris Dierickx (2005). The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics. Bioethics 19 (1):49–71.
Katie Page (2012). The Four Principles: Can They Be Measured and Do They Predict Ethical Decision Making? [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):10-.
Leigh Turner (2009). Anthropological and Sociological Critiques of Bioethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):83-98.
Nathan Carlin, Cathy Rozmus, Jeffrey Spike, Irmgard Willcockson, William Seifert, Cynthia Chappell, Pei-Hsuan Hsieh, Thomas Cole, Catherine Flaitz, Joan Engebretson, Rebecca Lunstroth, Charles Amos & Bryant Boutwell (2011). The Health Professional Ethics Rubric: Practical Assessment in Ethics Education for Health Professional Schools. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (4):277-290.
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 downloads28 ( #63,387 of 1,102,804 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,523 of 1,102,804 )
How can I increase my downloads?