David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):271 – 284 (2000)
Bioethical decision-making depends on presuppositions about the function and goal of bioethics. The authors in this issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy share the assumption that bioethics is about resolving cases, not about moral theory, and that the best method of bioethical decision-making is that which produces useful answers. Because we have no universally agreed upon background moral theory which can serve as the basis for bioethical decision-making, they try to move bioethics away from theory. For them, a good method of bioethical decision-making is one which resolves cases in ways that are justifiable to the parties involved, not necessarily in ways that bring us "close" to the right and the true. The authors consider how the move away from theory and toward actual cases is best accomplished. In particular, the debate in this issue is about specification, specified principlism, and casuistry.
|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
Michael H. Kottow Ma Md (2002). The Rationale of Value‐Laden Medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8 (1):77-84.
Similar books and articles
John-Stewart Gordon (2011). Global Ethics and Principlism. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (3):251-276.
Hugo Adam Bedau (1997). Making Mortal Choices: Three Exercises in Moral Casuistry. Oxford University Press.
Martin Calkins (2001). Casuistry and the Business Case Method. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
Yotam Lurie & Robert Albin (2007). Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics: From Decision Procedures to Edifying Perspectives. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 71 (2):195 - 207.
John D. Arras (1991). Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):29-51.
Mark Kuczewski (1998). Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (6):509-524.
Joseph P. Demarco & Paul J. Ford (2006). Balancing in Ethical Deliberation: Superior to Specification and Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):483 – 497.
Carson Strong (2000). Specified Principlism: What is It, and Does It Really Resolve Cases Better Than Casuistry? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):323 – 341.
David Degrazia (1992). Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):511-539.
Ana Smith Iltis (2000). Bioethics as Methodological Case Resolution: Specification, Specified Principlism and Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):271-284.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #76,845 of 1,098,955 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #57,966 of 1,098,955 )
How can I increase my downloads?