Search results for 'Craig A. Childress' (try it on Scholar)

90 found
Sort by:
  1. Rita Z. Goldstein, A. D. Craig, Antoine Bechara, Hugh Garavan, Anna Rose Childress, Martin P. Paulus & Nora D. Volkow (2009). The Neurocircuitry of Impaired Insight in Drug Addiction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (9):372-380.score: 8700.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Rita Z. Goldstein, D. A., Antoine Bechara, Hugh Garavan, Anna Rose Childress, Martin P. Paulus & Nora D. Volkow (2009). The Neurocircuitry of Impaired Insight in Drug Addiction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (9):372.score: 2400.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Craig A. Childress & Joy K. Asamen (1998). The Emerging Relationship of Psychology and the Internet: Proposed Guidelines for Conducting Internet Intervention Research. Ethics and Behavior 8 (1):19 – 35.score: 870.0
    The Internet is rapidly developing into an important medium of communication in modem society, and both psychological research and therapeutic interventions are being increasingly conducted using this new communication medium. As therapeutic interventions using the Internet are becoming more prevalent, it is becoming increasingly important to conduct research on psychotherapeutic Internet interventions to assist in the development of an appropriate standard of practice regarding interventions using this new medium. In this article, we examine the Internet and the current psychological uses (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. James F. Childress (1985). Civil Disobedience, Conscientious Objection, and Evasive Noncompliance: A Framework for the Analysis and Assessment of Illegal Actions in Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (1):63-84.score: 300.0
    This essay explores some of the conceptual and moral issues raised by illegal actions in health care. The author first identifies several types of illegal action, concentrating on civil disobedience, conscientious objection or refusal, and evasive noncompliance. Then he sketches a framework for the moral justification of these types of illegal action. Finally, he applies the conceptual and normative frameworks to several major cases of illegal action in health care, such as "mercy killing" and some decisions not to treat incompetent (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. James F. Childress (2003). Triage in Response to a Bioterrorist Attack. In Jonathan D. Moreno (ed.), In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis. Mit Press. 77--93.score: 300.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. James F. Childress (1982). Who Should Decide?: Paternalism in Health Care. Oxford University Press.score: 300.0
    "A very good book indeed: there is scarcely an issue anyone has thought to raise about the topic which Childress fails to treat with sensitivity and good judgement....Future discussions of paternalism in health care will have to come to terms with the contentions of this book, which must be reckoned the best existing treatment of its subject."--Ethics. "A clear, scholarly and balanced analysis....This is a book I can recommend to physicians, ethicists, students of both fields, and to those most (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. James F. Childress (1983). Book Review:Ethics From a Theocentric Perspective. Vol. 1: Theology and Ethics. James M. Gustafson. [REVIEW] Ethics 94 (1):136-.score: 240.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. James F. Childress (1974). A Response to Ronald Green "Conferred Rights and the Fetus". Journal of Religious Ethics 2 (1):77 - 83.score: 240.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress (1985). LRCC, 1980). Neil MacCormick,'Children's Rights: A Test-Case for Theories of Right', in Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), Pp. 159-66. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical and Legal Problems In. [REVIEW] In Michael Lockwood (ed.), Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine. Oxford University Press. 22--234.score: 240.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. James F. Childress (1997). A Misplaced Debate in Bioethics. In Hilde Lindemann (ed.), Stories and Their Limits: Narrative Approaches to Bioethics. Routledge. 252.score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. James F. Childress & John Macquarrie (eds.) (1986). A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Scm Press.score: 240.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Ronald B. Childress (1977). Developing a Personal Definition of Curriculum--A Study in Diversity or an Untenable Search for Consensus? Journal of Thought 12 (1):47-58.score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. James F. Childress (forthcoming). Fairness in the Allocation and Delivery of Health Care: A Case Study in Organ Transplantation. Practical Reasoning in Bioethics.score: 240.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Leslie A. Meltzer James F. Childress (2008). What Is Fair Participant Selection? In Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.), The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford University Press.score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. James F. Childress (2001). The Failure to Give: Reducing Barriers to Organ Donation. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11 (1):1-16.score: 120.0
    : Moral frameworks for evaluating non-donation strategies to increase the supply of cadaveric human organs for transplantation and ways to overcome barriers to organ donation are explored. Organ transplantation is a very complex area, because the human body evokes various beliefs, symbols, sentiments, and emotions as well as various rituals and social practices. From a rationalistic standpoint, some policies to increase the supply of transplantable organs may appear to be quite defensible but then turn out to be ineffective and perhaps (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. James F. Childress (2001). Putting Patients First in Organ Allocation: An Ethical Analysis of the U.S. Debate. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (4):365-376.score: 120.0
    Organ allocation policy involves a mixture of ethical, scientific, medical, legal, and political factors, among others. It is thus hard, and perhaps even impossible, to identify and fully separate ethical considerations from all these other factors. Yet I will focus primarily on the ethical considerations embedded in the current debate in the United States about organ allocation policy. I will argue that it is important to putpatientsfirstbut even then significant ethical questions will remain about exactly how to put patients first.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. James F. Childress (1997). Conscience and Conscientious Actions in the Context of MCOs. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (4):403-411.score: 120.0
    : Managed care organizations can produce conflicts of obligation and conflicts of interest that may lead to problems of conscience for health care professionals. This paper provides a basis for understanding the notions of conscience and conscientious objection and offers a framework for clinicians to stake out positions grounded in personal conscience as a way for them to respond to unacceptable pressures from managers to limit services.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. James F. Childress (1984). Moral Discourse About War in the Early Church. Journal of Religious Ethics 12 (1):2 - 18.score: 120.0
    This study examines some of the moral and theological convictions that created tensions for early Christians who affirmed that the government's sword is ordained by God for a fallen world but also that Christians should not exercise it at least in warfare. Three important moral pressures toward Christian participation in war were (1) the recognition of prevention or removal of harm as a requirement of neighbor-love, (2) the related sense of responsibility, fault, and guilt for omissions, and (3) the generalization (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Leslie Meltzer Henry & James Childress, What is Fair Participant Selection?score: 120.0
    The U.S. regulations for the protection of humans in biomedical and behavioral research were "born in scandal and reared in protectionism." This paper discusses the evolution of these regulations and the gaps that still persist in the ongoing effort to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable populations from research risks and providing all individuals and groups with an equal opportunity to benefit from research. In particular, this paper focuses on racial, social, and economic inequities in the selection of research participants; (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. James F. Childress (1973). Nonviolent Resistance: Trust and Risk-Taking. Journal of Religious Ethics 1:87 - 112.score: 120.0
    This paper analyzes nonviolent resistance and direct action, as seen by its practitioners and theoreticians, from the standpoint of trust and risk-taking. After an examination of the nature of trust, the author indicates how it can illuminate what selected figures such as Gandhi and King have claimed about nonviolence. He offers this analysis not as a defense but as a way of understanding nonviolence that can serve as a starting point for further discussion.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. James F. Childress (1997). &Quot;nonviolent Resistance: Trust and Risk-Taking" Twenty-Five Years Later. Journal of Religious Ethics 25 (2):213 - 220.score: 120.0
    Do pacifists and proponents of justified violence share a starting point? Whether or not just war theory contains an embedded presumption against violence is an important and disputed question. Substantively it is important not only because it has implications for the possibility of dialogue among Christians of different persuasions but also because the belief that the tradition advances no moral reservations about the use of force may have the effect of lowering the moral barriers against the resort to war. Conceptually (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. James F. Childress (1980). Scripture and Christian Ethics Some Reflections on the Role of Scripture in Moral Deliberation and Justification. Interpretation 34 (4):371-380.score: 120.0
    The use of Scripture for deliberation and justification in making moral judgments is a crucial and neglected function of the Bible in Christian ethics.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. O. Rauprich & J. Vollmann (2011). 30 Years Principles of Biomedical Ethics: Introduction to a Symposium on the 6th Edition of Tom L Beauchamp and James F Childress' Seminal Work. [REVIEW] Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (8):454-455.score: 72.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Mette Ebbesen (2010). Different Approaches to Principles of Biomedical Ethics : A Philosophical Analysis and Discussion of the Theories of the American Ethicists Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress and the Danish Philosophers Jakob Rendtorff & Peter Kemp. In Tyler N. Pace (ed.), Bioethics: Issues and Dilemmas. Nova Science Publishers.score: 72.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. J. L. A. Garcia (2006). Sin and Suffering in a Catholic Understanding of Medical Ethics. Christian Bioethics 12 (2):165-186.score: 48.0
    Drawing chiefly on recent sources, in Part One I sketch an untraditional way of articulating what I claim to be central elements of traditional Catholic morality, treating it as based in virtues, focused on the recipients (“patients”) of our attention and concern, and centered in certain person-to-person role-relationships. I show the limited and derivative places of “natural law,” and therefore of sin, within that framework. I also sketch out some possible implications for medical ethics of this approach to moral theory, (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Richard B. Davis (1995). The Principlism Debate: A Critical Overview. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):85-105.score: 42.0
    Clouser and Gert’s 'A Critique of Principlism’ (1990) has ignited debate over the adequacy of substituting principlism for moral theory as a means for dealing with biomedical dilemmas. Clouser and Gert argue that this sort of substitution is not adequate to the task. I examine their argument in light of recent defences of principlism on this score, those of B. Andrew Lustig (1992), David Degrazia (1992), and Beauchamp and Childress (1994). I argue that both sides in the debate have (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Ben Mepham (2000). A Framework for the Ethical Analysis of Novel Foods: The Ethical Matrix. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):165-176.score: 42.0
    The paper addresses the issue of how indemocratic societies a procedure might be formulatedto facilitate ethical judgements on modernbiotechnologies used in food production. A frameworkfor rational ethical analysis, the Ethical Matrix, isproposed. The Matrix adapts the principles describedby Beauchamp and Childress for application to medicalissues, to interest groups (e.g., producers,consumers, and the biotic environment) affected bythese technologies. The use of the Matrix isillustrated by applying it to an example of a ``novelfood,'' viz., a form of genetically modified maize.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. David Wright (2011). A Framework for the Ethical Impact Assessment of Information Technology. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):199-226.score: 42.0
    This paper proposes a framework for an ethical impact assessment which can be performed in regard to any policy, service, project or programme involving information technology. The framework is structured on the four principles posited by Beauchamp and Childress together with a separate section on privacy and data protection. The framework identifies key social values and ethical issues, provides some brief explanatory contextual information which is then followed by a set of questions aimed at the technology developer or policy-maker (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. B. Andrew Lustig (1992). The Method of 'Principlism': A Critique of the Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):487-510.score: 42.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Tom Tomlinson, Balancing Principles in Beauchamp and Childress.score: 42.0
    In the latest edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics , Tom Beauchamp and James Childress provide an expanded discussion of the ethical theory underlying their treatment of issues in medical ethics. Balancing judgements remain central to their method, as does the contention that such judgements are more than intuitive. This theory is developed precisely in response to the common skepticism directed at "principlism" in medical ethics. Such skepticism includes the claim that moral reasoning comes to a dead halt when (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Oliver Rauprich (2008). Common Morality: Comment on Beauchamp and Childress. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):43-71.score: 42.0
    The notion of common morality plays a prominent role in some of the most influential theories of biomedical ethics. Here, I focus on Beauchamp and Childress’s models in the fourth and fifth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics as well as on a revision that Beauchamp proposed in a recent article. Although there are significant differences in these works that require separate analysis, all include a role for common morality as starting point and normative framework for theory construction in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. J. R. Karlsen & J. H. Solbakk (2011). A Waste of Time: The Problem of Common Morality in Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (10):588-591.score: 42.0
    From the 5th edition of Beauchamp and Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics, the problem of common morality has been given a more prominent role and emphasis. With the publication of the 6th and latest edition, the authors not only attempt to ground their theory in common morality, but there is also an increased tendency to identify the former with the latter. While this stratagem may give the impression of a more robust, and hence stable, foundation for their theoretical construct, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. M. J. H. Lee (2010). The Problem of 'Thick in Status, Thin in Content' in Beauchamp and Childress' Principlism. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (9):525-528.score: 42.0
    For many, Thomas Beauchamp and James Childress have elaborated moral reasoning by using the four principles whereby all substantive problems of medical ethics (and of ethics more generally) can be properly analysed and cogent philosophical solutions for the problems can be found. It seems that their ‘principlism’ gets updated, with better features being added during the course of the six editions of Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Nonetheless, Beauchamp and Childress seem to have been losing their way when it (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. B. Andrew Lustig (1993). Perseverations on a Critical Theme. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):491-502.score: 42.0
    In response to my earlier critique of recent attempts to rebut principlism as an ethical approach, Green, Gert, and Clouser (GG&C) have in turn offered their own critique of my appraisal. This essay identifies eight major criticisms GG&C raise in their response and offers a rejoinder to each. Among them, three are especially important: (1) that the label of ‘deductivism’ fails to capture GG&C's ethical method and should be replaced by ‘descriptivism’; (2) that pluralistic accounts, including principlism, fail to offer (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. J. P. DeMarco (2005). Principlism and Moral Dilemmas: A New Principle. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):101-105.score: 42.0
    Moral conflicts occur in theories that involve more than one principle. I examine basic ways of dealing with moral dilemmas in medical ethics and in ethics generally, and propose a different approach based on a principle I call the "mutuality principle". It is offered as an addition to Tom Beauchamp and James Childress' principlism. The principle calls for the mutual enhancement of basic moral values. After explaining the principle and its strengths, I test it by way of an examination (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Markus Christen, Christian Ineichen & Carmen Tanner (2014). How “Moral” Are the Principles of Biomedical Ethics? – a Cross-Domain Evaluation of the Common Morality Hypothesis. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):47.score: 42.0
    The principles of biomedical ethics – autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice – are of paradigmatic importance for framing ethical problems in medicine and for teaching ethics to medical students and professionals. In order to underline this significance, Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress base the principles in the common morality, i.e. they claim that the principles represent basic moral values shared by all persons committed to morality and are thus grounded in human moral psychology. We empirically investigated the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. M. Norden (1995). Whose Life is It Anyway? A Study in Respect for Autonomy. Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (3):179-183.score: 42.0
    Brian Clark's drama, Whose Life Is It Anyway?, explores the difficulties of applying the principle of respect for autonomy to real-life circumstances. In the play a permanently disabled patient, who wishes to be allowed to die, raises moral questions about the adequacy of the autonomous agent, respect for the autonomy of others, the authority of the law, the allocation of society's resources, and the intrinsic value of human life. After a brief review of the story and definition of respect for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. John D. Arras (2009). The Hedgehog and the Borg: Common Morality in Bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):11-30.score: 36.0
    In this commentary, I critically discuss the respective views of Gert and Beauchamp–Childress on the nature of so-called common morality and its promise for enriching ethical reflection within the field of bioethics. Although I endorse Beauchamp and Childress’ shift from an emphasis on ethical theory as the source of moral norms to an emphasis on common morality, I question whether rouging up common morality to make it look like some sort of ultimate and universal foundation for morality, untouched (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Helmut David Baer & Joseph E. Capizzi (2005). Just War Theories Reconsidered: Problems with Prima Facie Duties and the Need for a Political Ethic. Journal of Religious Ethics 33 (1):119-137.score: 36.0
    This essay challenges a "meta-theory" in just war analysis that purports to bridge the divide between just war and pacifism. According to the meta-theory, just war and pacifism share a common presumption against killing that can be overridden only under conditions stipulated by the just war criteria. Proponents of this meta-theory purport that their interpretation leads to ecumenical consensus between "just warriors" and pacifists, and makes the just war theory more effective in reducing recourse to war. Engagement with the new (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Patrick Daly (2014). Common Sense and the Common Morality in Theory and Practice. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (3):187-203.score: 36.0
    The unfinished nature of Beauchamp and Childress’s account of the common morality after 34 years and seven editions raises questions about what is lacking, specifically in the way they carry out their project, more generally in the presuppositions of the classical liberal tradition on which they rely. Their wide-ranging review of ethical theories has not provided a method by which to move beyond a hypothetical approach to justification or, on a practical level regarding values conflict, beyond a questionable appeal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. A. Baumann, G. Audibert, C. G. Lafaye, L. Puybasset, P. -M. Mertes & F. Claudot (2013). Elective Non-Therapeutic Intensive Care and the Four Principles of Medical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (3):139-142.score: 30.0
    The chronic worldwide lack of organs for transplantation and the continuing improvement of strategies for in situ organ preservation have led to renewed interest in elective non-therapeutic ventilation of potential organ donors. Two types of situation may be eligible for elective intensive care: patients definitely evolving towards brain death and patients suitable as controlled non-heart beating organ donors after life-supporting therapies have been assessed as futile and withdrawn. Assessment of the ethical acceptability and the risks of these strategies is essential. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Virginia A. Sharpe (1997). Why “Do No Harm”? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 18 (1-2).score: 30.0
    Edmund Pellegrino has argued that the dramatic changes in American health care call for critical reflection on the traditional norms governing the therapeutic relationship. This paper offers such reflection on the obligation to do no harm. Drawing on work by Beauchamp and Childress and Pellegrino and Thomasma, I argue that the libertarian model of medical ethics offered by Engelhardt cannot adequately sustain an obligation to do no harm. Because the obligation to do no harm is not based simply on (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Alfred D. Beasley & Glenn C. Graber (1984). The Range of Autonomy: Informed Consent in Medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (1).score: 24.0
    On the basis of the characterization of autonomy set out by Beauchamp and Childress in Principles of Biomedical Ethics, we first explore some of the parameters along which autonomy may vary in degree through a series of hypothetical examples drawn from various settings; and, second and in more detail, we examine how the range of autonomy is affected through informed consent to various medical diagnostic tests. Our conclusions are (1) that there are significant implications for patient autonomy inherent in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. David DeGrazia (2003). Common Morality, Coherence, and the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (3):219-230.score: 24.0
    : The fifth edition of Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics is distinguished by its emphatic embrace of common morality as the ultimate source of moral norms. This essay critically evaluates the fifth edition's discussion of common morality and, to a lesser extent, its treatment of coherence (both the model of ethical justification and the associated concept). It is argued that the book is overly accommodating of existing moral beliefs. The paper concludes with three suggestions for improving this (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. 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.score: 24.0
    In his article 'Specifying, balancing and interpreting bioethical principles' (Richardson, 2000), Henry Richardson claims that the two dominant theories in bioethics - principlism, put forward by Beauchamp and Childress in Principles of Bioethics , and common morality, put forward by Gert, Culver and Clouser in Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals - are deficient because they employ balancing rather than specification to resolve disputes between principles or rules. We show that, contrary to Richardson's claim, the major problem with principlism, either (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Henry S. Richardson (2000). Specifying, Balancing, and Interpreting Bioethical Principles. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):285 – 307.score: 24.0
    The notion that it is useful to specify norms progressively in order to resolve doubts about what to do, which I developed initially in a 1990 article, has been only partly assimilated by the bioethics literature. The thought is not just that it is helpful to work with relatively specific norms. It is more than that: specification can replace deductive subsumption and balancing. Here I argue against two versions of reliance on balancing that are prominent in recent bioethical discussions. Without (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Ulrik Kihlbom (2008). Autonomy and Negatively Informed Consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (3):146-9.score: 24.0
    The requirement of informed consent (IC) to medical treatments is almost invariably justified with appeal to patient autonomy. Indeed, it is common to assume that there is a conceptual link between the principle of respect for autonomy and the requirement of IC, as in the influential work of Beauchamp and Childress. In this paper I will argue that the possible relation between the norm of respecting (or promoting) patient autonomy and IC is much weaker than conventionally conceived. One consequence (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Sabine Müller & Henrik Walter (2010). Reviewing Autonomy: Implications of the Neurosciences and the Free Will Debate for the Principle of Respect for the Patient's Autonomy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (02):205-.score: 24.0
    Beauchamp and Childress have performed a great service by strengthening the principle of respect for the patient's autonomy against the paternalism that dominated medicine until at least the 1970s. Nevertheless, we think that the concept of autonomy should be elaborated further. We suggest such an elaboration built on recent developments within the neurosciences and the free will debate. The reason for this suggestion is at least twofold: First, Beauchamp and Childress neglect some important elements of autonomy. Second, neuroscience (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Elliott Louis Bedford (2012). Abortion: At the Still Point of the Turning Conscientious Objection Debate. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 24 (2):63-82.score: 24.0
    Abortion is the central issue in the conscientious objection debate. In this article I demonstrate why this is so for two philosophical viewpoints prominent in American culture. One, represented by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, holds that the fundamental moral value of being human can be found in bare life and the other, represented by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, holds that this fundamental value is found in the life that can choose and determine itself. First, I articulate (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. K. A. Wallace (2009). Common Morality and Moral Reform. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):55-68.score: 24.0
    The idea of moral reform requires that morality be more than a description of what people do value, for there has to be some measure against which to assess progress. Otherwise, any change is not reform, but simply difference. Therefore, I discuss moral reform in relation to two prescriptive approaches to common morality, which I distinguish as the foundational and the pragmatic. A foundational approach to common morality (e.g., Bernard Gert’s) suggests that there is no reform of morality , but (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 90