PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12114829

Bioethical pluralism and complementarity.

Frederick Grinnell·Jeffrey P Bishop·Laurence B McCullough
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This essay presents complementarity as a novel feature of bioethical pluralism. First introduced by Neils Bohr in conjunction with quantum physics, complementarity in bioethics occurs when different perspectives account for equally important features of a situation but are mutually exclusive. Unlike conventional approaches to bioethical pluralism, which attempt in one fashion or another to isolate and choose between different perspectives, complementarity accepts all perspectives. As a result, complementarity results in a state of holistic, dynamic tension, rather than one that yields singular or final moral judgments.

Explore related subjects

BioethicsCultural DiversityEthical AnalysisEthical RelativismEthical TheoryFemaleHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHuman ExperimentationHumansMaleUnited StatesAnalytical ApproachBioethics and Professional EthicsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Frederick Grinnell, Jeffrey P Bishop, Laurence B McCullough. 2002. Bioethical pluralism and complementarity.. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2002.0047

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗