Sweetening the scent: Commentary on "what principlism misses"

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 232-233

  Sokol, Daniel K ^a  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449707597     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.028514     Document Type: Note

References (12)

1. Walker T. What principlism misses. J Med Ethics 2009;35:229-31.
2. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
3. Ross WD. The right and the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.
4. Gert B. Common morality: deciding what to do. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
5. Shweder R, Much N, Mahapatra M, et al. The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the "big three" explanations of suffering. In: Brandt A, Rozin P, eds. Morality and health. New York: Routledge, 1997.
6. Dworkin R. Life's dominion. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1993.
7. General Medical Council (GMC). 0-18 years: guidance for all doctors. London: GMC, 2007.
8. Gillon R. Ethics needs principles-four can encompass the rest-and respect for autonomy should be 'first among equals'. J Med Ethics 2003;29:307-12.
9. DeMarco J, Ford P. Balancing in ethical deliberation: superior to specification and casuistry. J Med Philos 2006;31:483-97.
10. Richardson H. Specifying, balancing, and interpreting bioethical principles. J Med Philos 2000;25:285-307.
11. Strong C. Specified principlism: what is it, and does it really resolve cases better than casuistry? J Med Philos 2000;25:323-41.
12. Gillon R. Families and genetic testing: the case of Jane and Phyllis from a four principles perspective. In: Ashcroft R, Lucassen A, Parker M, et al., eds. Case analysis in clinical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005:165-85