Authors
Bert Gordijn
Dublin City University
Abstract
The objective of this article is to analyse and compare four methods of ethical case deliberation. These include Clinical Pragmatism, The Nijmegen Method of ethical case deliberation, Hermeneutic dialogue, and Socratic dialogue. The origin of each method will be briefly sketched. Furthermore, the methods as well as the related protocols will be presented. Each method will then be evaluated against the background of those situations in which it is being used. The article aims to show that there is not one ideal method of ethical case deliberation, which fits to all possible kinds of moral problems. Rather, as each of the methods highlights a limited number of morally relevant aspects, each method has its strengths and weaknesses as well. These strengths and weaknesses should be evaluated in relation to different types of situations, for instance moral problems in treatment decisions, moral uneasiness and residue, and the like. The suggestion arrived at on the basis of the findings of this paper is a reasonable methodological plurality. This means that a method can be chosen depending on the type of moral problem to be deliberated upon. At the same time it means, that by means of a method, deliberation should be facilitated
Keywords clinical ethics  clinical pragmatism  ethical case deliberation  hermeneutics  method  participation  protocol  Socratic dialogue
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1025928617468
Options
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: 70,214
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

Oneself as Another.Paul Ricoeur - 1992 - University of Chicago Press.
The Right and the Good.W. D. Ross - 1930 - Philosophy 6 (22):236-240.
The right and the good.W. Ross - 1932 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 39 (2):11-12.
The Right and the Good.W. D. Ross - 1935 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 119 (1):124-124.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 44 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Casuistry and the Business Case Method.Martin Calkins - 2001 - Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
Ethical Case Deliberation and Decision Making.Diego Gracia - 2003 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (3):227-233.
Case Method and Casuistry: The Problem of Bias.Loretta M. Kopelman - 1994 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1).
The Ethical Cycle.I. van de Poel & L. Royakkers - 2007 - Journal of Business Ethics 71 (1):1-13.
The Ethical Cycle.I. Van De Poel & L. Royakkers - 2007 - Journal of Business Ethics 71 (1):1 - 13.
Editorial: European Debates on Ethical Case Deliberation.Norbert L. Steinkamp - 2003 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (3):225-226.
Toward a Foundational Normative Method in Business Ethics.Lester F. Goodchild - 1986 - Journal of Business Ethics 5 (6):485 - 499.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-31

Total views
47 ( #241,078 of 2,507,638 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,871 of 2,507,638 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes