-
2
-
-
0038607086
-
The Cambridge Medical Ethics Workbook
-
Case Studies, Commentaries and Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (abridged version
-
M. Parker & D. Dickenson2005The Cambridge Medical Ethics WorkbookCase Studies, Commentaries and Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (abridged version4-5
-
(2005)
, pp. 4-5
-
-
Parker, M.1
Dickenson, D.2
-
3
-
-
79958827097
-
-
Unfortunately, the case description offers no other details about Maria's pain, which could help us to determine issues with important consequences for the evaluation of the case
-
Unfortunately, the case description offers no other details about Maria's pain, which could help us to determine issues with important consequences for the evaluation of the case
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
79958851889
-
-
(i) The kind of harm Maria suffers, (ii) the assessment of Maria's competence with respect to her capacity to make informed decisions, (iii) whether artificial nutrition is a form of treatment or the most fundamental form of care, (iv) the issue of whether the medical tradition of the country should play a vital role in the process of decision making, and (v) whether the personal and religious beliefs of the physician should be acknowledged
-
(i) The kind of harm Maria suffers, (ii) the assessment of Maria's competence with respect to her capacity to make informed decisions, (iii) whether artificial nutrition is a form of treatment or the most fundamental form of care, (iv) the issue of whether the medical tradition of the country should play a vital role in the process of decision making, and (v) whether the personal and religious beliefs of the physician should be acknowledged
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
79958830734
-
-
NOTE
-
Balancing is, according to Beauchamp and Childress, 'especially important for reaching judgments in individual cases' (T. Beauchamp & J. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 18), i.e. balancing is 'the process of finding reasons to support beliefs about which moral norms should prevail' (Beauchamp & Childress, op. cit. note 1, p. 20). This means that balancing has something to do with providing good reasons for justified acts. The following six conditions meet the important objection that balancing seems too intuitive and open-ended: (1) the overriding norm is more reasonable, (2) the infringement's justifying objective must be achievable, (3) the infringement is morally preferable, (4) the infringement must be in accord with the primary goal of action, (5) the infringement's possible negative effects must be minimized, and (6) there must be impartiality in action (Ibid: 23). That is why Beauchamp and Childress make the conciliatory claim that 'in some circumstances we will not be able to determine which moral norm to follow' (Ibid: 24).
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
79958863902
-
-
One may gain the impression that there is still no really sufficient solution to the case in question; but this is somewhat misleading. One has to distinguish two levels in this issue: the practical level and the theoretical level. Practically speaking, the results at stake seem sufficient for solving the problem but still lack the theoretical constraining framework. That is, the theoretical level should be examined in more detail in order to help us see how it can enrich the practical level by providing more methodological certainty.
-
One may gain the impression that there is still no really sufficient solution to the case in question; but this is somewhat misleading. One has to distinguish two levels in this issue: the practical level and the theoretical level. Practically speaking, the results at stake seem sufficient for solving the problem but still lack the theoretical constraining framework. That is, the theoretical level should be examined in more detail in order to help us see how it can enrich the practical level by providing more methodological certainty.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
79958790287
-
-
Common Morality. Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford University Press
-
B. Gert.2007Common Morality. Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford University Press
-
(2007)
-
-
Gert, B.1
-
8
-
-
79958778804
-
-
Beauchamp & Childress. op.cit. note 1
-
Beauchamp & Childress. op.cit. note 1
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
79958813967
-
-
The view that there is only 'one' best solution to a moral problem has been held by various well-known philosophers such as Aristotle (virtue ethics), Kant (deontology), and Bentham (Utilitarianism). Other philosophers, however, e.g. Beauchamp and Childress (principlism) or Gert (common morality approach), believe instead that there can be different and equally good solutions to moral problems. To 'solve a moral problem', then, means to provide a well-justified solution for a particular moral conflict without necessarily claiming that this is the only acceptable answer
-
The view that there is only 'one' best solution to a moral problem has been held by various well-known philosophers such as Aristotle (virtue ethics), Kant (deontology), and Bentham (Utilitarianism). Other philosophers, however, e.g. Beauchamp and Childress (principlism) or Gert (common morality approach), believe instead that there can be different and equally good solutions to moral problems. To 'solve a moral problem', then, means to provide a well-justified solution for a particular moral conflict without necessarily claiming that this is the only acceptable answer
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
79958840253
-
-
Beauchamp & Childress, op. cit. note 5
-
Beauchamp & Childress, op. cit. note 5
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
0141494582
-
Defense of Common Morality
-
T. BeauchampDefense of Common MoralityKennedy Inst Ethics J2003133259-274
-
(2003)
Kennedy Inst Ethics J
, vol.13
, Issue.3
, pp. 259-274
-
-
Beauchamp, T.1
-
12
-
-
79958853414
-
-
Beauchamp & Childress
-
Beauchamp & Childress
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
79958774193
-
-
Beauchamp, op. cit. note 11
-
Beauchamp, op. cit. note 11260
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
79958857380
-
-
A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press
-
J. Rawls1971A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press
-
(1971)
-
-
Rawls, J.1
|
