Getting down to cases: The revival of casuistry in bioethics

Abstract
This article examines the emergence of casuistical case analysis as a methodological alternative to more theory-driven approaches in bioethics research and education. Focusing on The Abuse of Casuistry by A. Jonsen and S. Toulmin, the article articulates the most characteristic features of this modernday casuistry (e.g., the priority allotted to case interpretation and analogical reasoning over abstract theory, the resemblance of casuistry to common law traditions, the ‘open texture’ of its principles, etc.) and discusses some problems with casuistry as an ‘anti-theoretical’ method. It is argued that casuistry so defined is ‘theory modest’ rather than ‘theory free’ and that ethical theory can still play a significant role in casuistical analysis; that casuistical analyses will encounter conflicting ‘deep’ interpretations of our social practices and institutions, and are therefore unlikely sources of increased social consensus on controversial bioethical questions; that its conventionalism raises questions about casuistry's ability to criticize norms embedded in the societal consensus; and that casuistry's emphasis upon analogical reasoning may tend to reinforce the individualistic nature of much bioethical writing. It is concluded that, notwithstanding these problems, casuistry represents a promising alternative to the regnant model of ‘applied ethics’ (i.e., to the ritualistic invocation of the so-called ‘principles of bioethics’). The pedagogical implications of casuistry are addressed throughout the paper and include the following recommendations: (1) use real cases, (2) make them long, richly detailed and comprehensive, (3) present complex sequences of cases, (4) stress the problem of ‘moral diagnosis’, and (5) be ever mindful of the limits of casuistical analysis. Keywords: casuistry, interpretation, methodology, pedagogy CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/16.1.29
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,769
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Anthropological and Sociological Critiques of Bioethics.Leigh Turner - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):83-98.

View all 21 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics.Albert R. Jonsen - 1991 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12 (4).
Character as a Safeguard for Journalists Using Case-Based Ethical Reasoning.Sandra L. Borden - 1999 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):93-104.
Casuistry and the Business Case Method.Martin Calkins - 2001 - Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
Can Phronesis Save the Life of Medical Ethics?Eric B. Beresford - 1996 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 17 (3).
Respondeo: Method and Content in Casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):115-119.
New Casuistry: What's New?Theo Van Willigenburg - 1998 - Philosophical Explorations 1 (2):152 – 164.
The Priesthood of Bioethics and the Return of Casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1993 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1):33-49.
Casuistry: A Case-Based Methods for Journalists.David E. Boeyink - 1992 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 7 (2):107 – 120.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-08-22

Total downloads

39 ( #130,914 of 2,158,890 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #353,777 of 2,158,890 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums