Balancing in ethical deliberation: Superior to specification and casuistry

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 483-497

  DeMarco, Joseph P ^a   Ford, Paul J ^b  

^a CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Balancing; Casuistry; Education; Ethics consultation; Specification

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL PROFESSION; MORALITY; PHYSICIAN; REVIEW;

BIOETHICS; CASUISTRY; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; HUMANS; TEACHING;

EID: 33750574562     PISSN: 03605310     EISSN: 17445019     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03605310600912675     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Beauchamp, T. L. (2003). 'Methods and principles in biomedical ethics,' Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 269-274.
3. DeGrazia, D. (1992). 'Moving forward in bioethical theory: Theories, cases, and specified principlism,' Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 17, 511-539.
4. Gert, B., Culver, C., & Clouser, K. D. (1997). Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Richardson, H. S. (1990). 'Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems,' Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, 279-310.
6. Richardson, H. S. (2000). 'Specifying, balancing, and interpreting bioethical principles,' Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25, 285-307.
7. Strong, C. (2000). 'Specified principlism: What is it, and does it really resolve cases better than casuistry?' Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25, 323-341.
8. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. (1976). 17 Cal.3d 425.