Document Detail


Specified principlism: what is it, and does it really resolve cases better than casuistry?
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  10852337     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Principlism has been advocated as an approach to resolving concrete cases and issues in bioethics, but critics have pointed out that a main problem for principlism is its lack of a method for assigning priorities to conflicting ethical principles. A version of principlism referred to as 'specified principlism' has been put forward in an attempt to overcome this problem. However, none of the advocates of specified principlism have attempted to demonstrate that the method actually works in resolving detailed clinical cases. This paper shows that when one tries to use it, specified principlism fails to provide practical assistance in deciding how to resolve concrete cases. Proponents of specified principlism have attempted to defend it by arguing that it is superior to casuistry, but it can be shown that their arguments are faulty. Because of these reasons, specified principlism should not be considered a leading contender in the search for methods of making justifiable decisions in clinical cases.
Authors:
C Strong
Related Documents :
16092127 - Artificial deformation of the human skull: a review.
19385757 - The convergence of research and clinical practice: institutional review board review of...
21654227 - Rapid response team effectiveness.
16549507 - Amplified immunohistochemical detection of prpsc in animal transmissible spongiform enc...
2354687 - Kasabach merritt syndrome in an adult female african: case report.
23599137 - Use of arteriovenous fistulae for home parenteral nutrition - a review of the literature.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Case Reports; Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Journal of medicine and philosophy     Volume:  25     ISSN:  0360-5310     ISO Abbreviation:  J Med Philos     Publication Date:  2000 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2000-10-04     Completed Date:  2000-10-04     Revised Date:  2005-03-18    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7610512     Medline TA:  J Med Philos     Country:  NETHERLANDS    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  323-41     Citation Subset:  E; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Human Values and Ethics, College of Medicine, University of Tennessee, Memphis 38163, USA. cstrong@utmem.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Abnormalities, Multiple
Bioethics*
Decision Making
Esophageal Atresia
Ethics*
Ethics, Medical
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Morals
Patient Care
Philosophy*
Philosophy, Medical
Treatment Refusal
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
J Med Philos. 2000 Jun;25(3):348-60   [PMID:  10852338 ]
J Med Philos. 2000 Jun;25(3):342-7   [PMID:  11023381 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Specifying, balancing, and interpreting bioethical principles.
Next Document:  Enhanced cellular uptake and transport of polyclonal immunoglobulin G and fab after their cationizat...