The authors use the term “principlism” to refer to the practice of using “principles” to replace both moral theory and particular moral rules and ideals in dealing with the moral problems that arise in medical practice. The authors argue that these “principles” do not function as claimed, and that their use is misleading both practically and theoretically. The “principles” are in fact not guides to action, but rather they are merely names for a collection of sometimes superficially related matters for (...) consideration when dealing with a moral problem. The “principles” lack any systematic relationship to each other, and they often conflict with each other. These conflicts are unresolvable, since there is no unified moral theory from which they are all derived. For comparison the authors sketch the advantages of using a unified moral theory. (shrink)

After surveying and criticizing some earlier definitions of "disease", we propose that a general term--malady--be used to represent what all diseases, illnesses, injuries, etc., have in common. We define a malady as the suffering, or increased risk of suffering an evil in the absence of a distinct sustaining cause. We discuss the key terms in the definition: evil, distinct sustaining cause, and increased risk. We show that the role of abnormality is to clarify these terms rather than to be used (...) directly in the definition of malady. (shrink)

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 the (...) original version, or the specified principlism of Richardson, is that it conceives of morality as being composed of free-standing principles, rather than as common morality conceives it, as being a complete public system, composed of rules, ideals, morally relevant features, and a procedure for determining when a rule can be justifiably violated. (shrink)

Unlike the principles of Kant, Mill, and Rawls, those of principlism are not action guides that stem from an underlying, integrated moral theory. Hence problems arise in reconciling the principles with each other and, indeed, in interpreting them as action guides at all, since they have no content in and of themselves. Another approach to "theory and method in bioethics" is presented as an alternative to principlism, though actually the "alternative" predates principlism by about 10 years. The alternative's account of (...) morality stays close to ordinary, common morality with its rules and ideals, which in turn are grounded in aspects of human nature. As such, morality must be understood to be a rational, impartial, and public system that is incumbent on everyone. Morality is a unified and integrated system. The moral rules and ideals are also "culture-" and "profession-sensitive" in that they are interpreted more specifically within these various contexts. (shrink)

Two years ago in two articles in a thematic issue of this journal the three of us engaged in a critique of principlism. In a subsequent issue, B. Andrew Lustig defended aspects of principlism we had criticized and argued against our own account of morality. Our reply to Lustig's critique is also in two parts, corresponding with his own. Our first part shows how Lustig's criticisms are seriously misdirected. Our second and philosophically more important part picks up on Lustig's challenge (...) to us to show that our account of morality is more adequate than principlism. In particular we show that recognition of morality as public and systematic enables us to provide a far better description of morality than does principlism. This explains why we adopt the label “Dartmouth Descriptivism.”. (shrink)

The goal is to isolate points of philosophical interest in the preceding articles on narrative medical ethics in order to focus subsequent dialogue between the two disciplines. Ethics is an enterprise that has over the centuries developed a somewhat malleable structure, comprising characteristics, methods, lines of reasoning, rules, principles, assumptions, and arguments. This structure provides the framework within which many disciplines contribute to ethics through the exercise of their particular interests, skills, and methods. Challenging or changing the structural components requires (...) arguments of a traditional sort appropriate to the discipline of ethics. Three tenets are proposed as comprising the “received view” or credo of the literature and ethics movement. Each is examined. Then the individual articles in this issue are explored to the end of ferreting out points that would be fruitful points of discussion between philosophy and literature folks pursuing their mutual interest in ethics. (shrink)

The author discusses the contribution of humanities teaching in medical education. Five "qualities of mind" specifically engendered by the humanistic disciplines are isolated, delineated, and illustrated: critical abilities, flexibility of perspective, nondogmatism, discernment of values, and empathy and self-knowledge. Keywords: humanities, humanities and medicine, medical education CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

The essays in this Journal issue offer examples of how textual analysis, literary theory, and the reading and writing of literature can contribute to an understanding of ethical issues in medicine. The editors' purpose in such an issue is to stimulate discussion between philosopher-ethicists and literary scholars whose work concerns this topic. With the concluding essays by editors Clouser and Hawkins, this discussion begins.

Various meanings of “rational” implicitly and explicitly suggested in this issue's articles are abstracted and stated. Two accounts of rationality are shown to be able to explain most uses of “rational”: the “cool moment” account and a more objective account. The former is examined and modified, but still found inadequate. The objective account of rational is developed, taking “irrational” as the basic concept. “Irrational” is given content in terms of a list, and “rational” is subsequently defined as “not irrational”. Reasons (...) and motives are defined and distinguished. The advantages of the objective account are explored and some challenges to it are answered. (shrink)