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):323 – 341 (2000)
Principlism has been advocated as an approach to resolving concrete cases and issues in bioethics, but critics have pointed out that a main problem for principlism is its lack of a method for assigning priorities to conflicting ethical principles. A version of principlism referred to as 'specified principlism' has been put forward in an attempt to overcome this problem. However, none of the advocates of specified principlism have attempted to demonstrate that the method actually works in resolving detailed clinical cases. This paper shows that when one tries to use it, specified principlism fails to provide practical assistance in deciding how to resolve concrete cases. Proponents of specified principlism have attempted to defend it by arguing that it is superior to casuistry, but it can be shown that their arguments are faulty. Because of these reasons, specified principlism should not be considered a leading contender in the search for methods of making justifiable decisions in clinical cases.
|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
Eran Klein (2011). Is There a Need for Clinical Neuroskepticism? Neuroethics 4 (3):251-259.
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.
Anna Julie Rasmussen & Mette Ebbesen (2014). Characteristics, Properties and Ethical Issues of Carbon Nanotubes in Biomedical Applications. NanoEthics 8 (1):29-48.
Similar books and articles
Richard B. Davis (1995). The Principlism Debate: A Critical Overview. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):85-105.
Benjamin H. Levi (1996). Four Approaches to Doing Ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):7-39.
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.
K. Danner Clouser (1993). The Method of Public Morality Versus the Method of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):477-489.
John-Stewart Gordon (2011). Global Ethics and Principlism. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (3):251-276.
B. Andrew Lustig (1992). The Method of 'Principlism': A Critique of the Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):487-510.
Ana Smith Iltis (2000). Bioethics as Methodological Case Resolution: Specification, Specified Principlism and Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):271 – 284.
Michael Quante & Andreas Vieth (2002). Defending Principlism Well Understood. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (6):621 – 649.
Mark Kuczewski (1998). Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (6):509-524.
David Degrazia (1992). Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):511-539.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #45,725 of 1,700,257 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,700,257 )
How can I increase my downloads?