PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2073554

Methodologies for clinical ethics.

J F Drane
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Truly professional medical ethics requires a methodology that generates both moral discernment and consistently right judgments. In this article the author briefly reviews difficulties involved in ethical decision-making, the historical development of casuistry, and four ethical methodologies employed in clinical medicine today. These latter, which are outlined and compared, are as follows: the methodology developed by David Thomasma in the 1960s and 1970s; one created by Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade; another developed by the author; and the Bochum Protocol authored by Hans-Martin Sass et al. of the Bochum Center for Medical Ethics in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Explore related subjects

CasuistryCultural DiversityDecision MakingEthical AnalysisEthical RelativismEthicistsEthics, ClinicalEthics, MedicalEuropeHumanismHumansInternationalityLatin AmericaPhilosophyTheologyUnited StatesVirtuesAnalytical ApproachBioethics and Professional EthicsThomas AquinasJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J F Drane. 1990. Methodologies for clinical ethics.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2073554/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Principlism revisited: response to Simon Waltho.

We respond to the comments provided on our paper 'Principles help to analyse but often give no solution-secondary prevention after a cardiac event' by Simon Waltho, and highlight points of clarification.

Casuistry↗
PubMed2006

Integrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence-based approaches.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has thus far failed to adequately account for the appropriate incorporation of other potential warrants for medical decision making into clinical practice. In particular, EBM has struggled with the value and integration of other kinds of medical knowledge, such as those derived from clinical experience or based on pathophysiologic rationale. The general priority given to empirical evidence derived from clinical research in all EBM approaches is not epistemically tenable. A casuistic alternative to EBM approaches recognizes that five distinct topics, 1) empirical evidence, 2) experiential evidence, 3) pathophysiologic rationale, 4) patient goals and values, and 5) system features are potentially relevant to any clinical decision. No single topic has a general priority over any other and the relative importance of a topic will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The skilled clinician must weigh these potentially conflicting evidentiary and non-evidentiary warrants for action, employing both practical and theoretical reasoning, in order to arrive at the best choice for an individual patient.

Casuistry↗