David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):487-510 (1992)
Several scholars have recently criticized the dominant emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics best exemplified by Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics . In Part I of this essay, I assess the fairness and cogency of three broad criticisms raised against ‘principlism’ as an approach: (1) that principlism, as an exercise in applied ethics, is insufficiently attentive to the dialectical relations between ethical theory and moral practice; (2) that principlism fails to offer a systematic account of the principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice; and (3) that principlism, as a version of moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by its theoretical agnosticism. While acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress's reliance upon Ross's version of intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the critics of principlism have failed to make a compelling case against its theoretical or practical adequacy as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess the moral theory developed by Bernard Gert in Morality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules , because Gert has recommended his approach as a systematic alternative to principlism. I judge Gert's theory to be seriously incomplete and, in contrast to principlism, unable to generate coherent conclusions about cases of active euthanasia and paternalism. Keywords: active euthanasia, applied ethics, Beauchamp and Childress, intuitionism, paternalism, principlism, W.D. Ross 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
George J. Agich (2005). What Kind of Doing is Clinical Ethics? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (1):7-24.
Christopher Meyers (2003). Appreciating W. D. Ross:On Duties and Consequences. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 18 (2):81 – 97.
Neelke Doorn (2010). A Procedural Approach to Distributing Responsibilities in R&D Networks. Poiesis and Praxis 7 (3):169-188.
Wendy Lipworth & Miles Little (2014). Deriving and Critiquing an Empirically Based Framework for Pharmaceutical Ethics. Ajob Empirical Bioethics 5 (1):23-32.
Susan Frances Jones & Anthony S. Kessel (2001). The 'Redefinition of Death' Debate: Western Concepts and Western Bioethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (1):63-75.
Similar books and articles
Mark Kuczewski (1998). Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (6):509-524.
Bernard Gert, Charles M. Culver & K. Danner Clouser (2000). Common Morality Versus Specified Principlism: Reply to Richardson. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):308 – 322.
David Degrazia (1992). Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):511-539.
Michael Quante & Andreas Vieth (2002). Defending Principlism Well Understood. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (6):621 – 649.
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.
Bernard Gert (1990). A Critique of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):219-236.
B. Andrew Lustig (1993). Perseverations on a Critical Theme. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):491-502.
Tom Sorell (2011). The Limits of Principlism and Recourse to Theory: The Example of Telecare. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (4):369-382.
Richard B. Davis (1995). The Principlism Debate: A Critical Overview. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):85-105.
K. Danner Clouser (1993). The Method of Public Morality Versus the Method of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):477-489.
Added to index2010-08-22
Total downloads44 ( #90,583 of 1,789,930 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,930 )
How can I increase my downloads?