Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (3):205-229 (2014)

Since the publication of the first edition of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics there has been much debate about what a proper method in medical ethics should look like. The main rival for Beauchamp and Childress’s account, principlism, has consistently been casuistry, an account that recommends argument by analogy from paradigm cases. Admirably, Beauchamp and Childress have modified their own view in successive editions of Principles of Biomedical Ethics in order to address the concerns proponents of casuistry and others have had about principlism. Given these adjustments to their view, some have claimed that principlism and casuistry no longer count as distinct methods. Even so, many still consider these two conceptions of bioethical methodologies as rivals. Both accounts of the relationship between casuistry and principlism are wrong. These two conceptions of methodology in biomedical ethics are significantly different, but the differences are not the ones pointed out by those who still claim that they are distinct positions. In this article, I explain where the real similarities and differences lie between these two views
Keywords Principlism  Casuistry  Moral methodology  Bioethics  Medical ethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-014-9295-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 52,956
External links

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

Philosophical investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein & G. E. M. Anscombe - 1953 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 161:124-124.
Critique of Pure Reason.Wolfgang Schwarz - 1966 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 26 (3):449-451.
The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning.Kenneth W. Kemp - 1988 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 24 (1):76-80.
Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics.John Arras - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):29-51.
Casuistry: An Alternative or Complement to Principles?Albert R. Jonsen - 1995 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (3):237-251.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Method of 'Principlism': A Critique of the Critique.B. Andrew Lustig - 1992 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):487-510.
Ethics and Imagination.Anders Nordgren - 1998 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (2):117-141.
Four Approaches to Doing Ethics.Benjamin H. Levi - 1996 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):7-39.
What Kind of Doing is Clinical Ethics?George J. Agich - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (1):7-24.
Global Ethics and Principlism.John-Stewart Gordon - 2011 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (3):251-276.
Casuistry in Medical Ethics: Rehabilitated, or Repeat Offender?Tom Tomlinson - 1994 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1).
What is the Outcome of Applying Principlism?Kristen Hine - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (6):375-388.
Defending Principlism Well Understood.Michael Quante & Andreas Vieth - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (6):621 – 649.
The Principlism Debate: A Critical Overview.Richard B. Davis - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):85-105.


Added to PP index

Total views
41 ( #234,166 of 2,343,995 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #514,126 of 2,343,995 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes