Does empirical research make bioethics more relevant? ``The embedded researcher'' as a methodological approach
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):17-29 (2004)
| Abstract | What is the status of empirical contributions to bioethics, especially to clinical bioethics? Where is the empirical approach discussed in bioethics related to the ongoing debate about principlism versus casuistry? Can we consider an integrative model of research in medical ethics and which empirical methodology could then be valuable, the quantitative or the qualitative? These issues will be addressed in the first, theoretical part of the paper. The concept of the embedded researcher presented in this article was stimulated by the two questions, (1) how can we safeguard that our research will yield valid and meaningful results to practice? and (2), how can we convince clinical colleagues that medical ethics offers relevant contributions to the analysis and solution of problems? One tentative answer has been our effort to elaborate a coherent methodological research approach in the field of end-of-life issues integrating qualitative and quantitative as well as casuistic methodologies. This development is characterized in the second part describing the ECOPE Study (short title) Ethical Conditions Of Passive Euthanasia. The achievements and limitations of the suggested approach of the embedded researcher are discussed referring to 3 examples of our joint studies about ethical issues concerning(1) critical decision-making in neonatology(2) limitation of treatment in intensive care(3) problems with doctor-patient conversation at the end of life in oncologyConclusions from our studies are put to discussion in the final part of the paper about how to further develop research in the field of end-of-life care and, maybe,clinical bioethics as a whole | |||||||||
| 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: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLucy Frith (2010). Symbiotic Empirical Ethics: A Practical Methodology. Bioethics 26 (4):198-206.
Benjamin B. Wolman (1966). Some Epistemological and Methodological Issues in Clinical Research. Inquiry 9 (1-4):171 – 184.
Anthony D. Miyazaki & Kimberly A. Taylor (2008). Researcher Interaction Biases and Business Ethics Research: Respondent Reactions to Researcher Characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics 81 (4):779 - 795.
Samia Hurst (2010). What 'Empirical Turn in Bioethics'? Bioethics 24 (8):439-444.
Jean-Michel Plane (2000). The Ethnomethodological Approach of Management: A New Perspective on Constructivist Research. Journal of Business Ethics 26 (3):233 - 243.
Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, Mieke Grypdonck, Nancy Cannaerts & Els Steeman (2004). Empirical Ethics in Action: Lessons From Two Empirical Studies in Nursing Ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):31-39.
Robert A. Pearlman, Steven H. Miles & Robert M. Arnold (1993). Contributions of Empirical Research to Medical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (3).
Mats Johansson & Linus Broström (2008). Turning Failures Into Successes: A Methodological Shortcoming in Empirical Research on Surrogate Accuracy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):17-26.
Guy Widdershoven (ed.) (2008). Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford University Press.
Richard E. Ashcroft (2003). Constructing Empirical Bioethics: Foucauldian Reflections on the Empirical Turn in Bioethics Research. Health Care Analysis 11 (1):3-13.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-10Total downloads2 ( #232,265 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
