PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9650111

Imaginary restrictions.

N Pickering
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The role of literature and imagination in medicine and medical ethics is currently under discussion. This paper argues that the role of literature is not to furnish generalisable examples for guidance. Rather, engagement with literature parallels moral engagement with other people. The work of the imagination, in this context, is not to hypothesise, but to grant life to the characters and world of literature. In doing this, one may develop one's moral life.

Explore related subjects

Ethical TheoryEthicsHumansImaginationMedicine in LiteratureMoral DevelopmentMoralsNarrationPhilosophy, MedicalBioethics and Professional EthicsProfessional Patient RelationshipJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N Pickering. 1998. Imaginary restrictions.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.24.3.171

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

Selection of recipients for donor organs in transplant medicine.

This paper deals with a problem which has received a great deal of attention in the ethical literature, but about which very little is known empirically: the selection of recipients for organs in transplant medicine. Based on a larger study, it is shown how this problem is practically resolved in one European country, Germany. It is demonstrated that most of the criteria used to determine recipients are non-medical in nature, even though they generally tend to be rationalized in medical terms. Moreover, the choice of criteria depends as much on prognostic considerations as on personal indiosyncrasies and values held by individual physicians who are in charge at the various programs. Several examples of the extremely diverse policies in which this results are presented.

Ethical Theory↗
PubMed1998

Against medical ethics: opening the can of worms.

In a controversial paper, David Seedhouse argues that medical ethics is not and cannot be a distinct discipline with it own field of study. He derives this claim from a characterization of ethics, which he states but does not defend. He claims further that the project of medical ethics as it exists and of moral philosophy do not overlap. I show that Seedhouse's views on ethics have wide implications which he does not declare, and in the light of this argue that Seedhouse owes us a defence of his characterization of ethics. Further, I show that his characterization of ethics, which he uses to attack medical ethics, is a committed position within moral philosophy. As a consequence of this, it does not allow the relation between moral philosophy and medical ethics to be discussed without prejudice to its outcome. Finally, I explore the relation between Seedhouse's position and naturalism, and its implications for medical epistemology. I argue that this shows us that Seedhouse's position, if it can be defended, is likely to lead to a fruitful and important line of inquiry which reconnects philosophy and medical ethics.

Ethical Theory↗