...
首页> 外文期刊>Theoretical medicine and bioethics >What really separates casuistry from principlism in biomedical ethics
【24h】

What really separates casuistry from principlism in biomedical ethics

机译:在生物医学伦理学中,真正使保费制与本位主义脱颖而出的是什么

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Since the publication of the first edition of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics there has been much debate about what a proper method in medical ethics should look like. The main rival for Beauchamp and Childress's account, principlism, has consistently been casuistry, an account that recommends argument by analogy from paradigm cases. Admirably, Beauchamp and Childress have modified their own view in successive editions of Principles of Biomedical Ethics in order to address the concerns proponents of casuistry and others have had about principlism. Given these adjustments to their view, some have claimed that principlism and casuistry no longer count as distinct methods. Even so, many still consider these two conceptions of bioethical methodologies as rivals. Both accounts of the relationship between casuistry and principlism are wrong. These two conceptions of methodology in biomedical ethics are significantly different, but the differences are not the ones pointed out by those who still claim that they are distinct positions. In this article, I explain where the real similarities and differences lie between these two views.
机译:自汤姆·波尚(Tom Beauchamp)和詹姆士·柴德雷斯(James Childress)的《生物医学伦理学原理》第一版出版以来,关于医学伦理学应采用什么样的适当方法的争论一直很多。 Beauchamp和Childress的说法的主要竞争对手,原则主义一直是casuistry,这是一个从范式案例中类推的论点。令人钦佩的是,博尚和柴尔德雷斯在后续版本的《生物医学伦理学原理》中修改了自己的观点,以解决对支持者和其他人对本位主义的关注。鉴于这些观点的调整,一些人声称,原则主义和武断主义不再被视为不同的方法。即便如此,许多人仍将这两种生物伦理学方法学概念视为对立。关于工艺主义与原则主义之间关系的两种说法都是错误的。在生物医学伦理学中,这两种方法论概念存在显着差异,但这些差异并不是那些仍然声称自己是不同立场的人所指出的。在本文中,我将解释这两种视图之间真正的相似之处和不同之处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号