Literature DB >> 12814286

The ground of dialogical bioethics.

Abraham Rudnick1.   

Abstract

Dialogical ethics are a procedural alternative to substantive ethics such as consequentialism, deontology, principlism, casuistry, virtue ethics and care ethics. Dialogical ethics are procedural in that they do not establish goods in advance, unlike substantive ethics, but rather determine goods through a procedure enacted by the actual parties involved (although some substantive notion of justice may still be required); and they are dialogical in that the procedure is that of dialogue, involving both empathic critical discussion and negotiation. A fundamental tenet of dialogical ethics may be the use of appropriate rules of order regulating dialogue among the parties involved. Some of the central characteristics of such rules of order are that they are reciprocally regulated by dialogue, that they override other ethical considerations, and that they institute empathic critical discussion and negotiation within the ethical dialogue. Dialogical bioethics are the application of dialogical ethics to ethical problems in medicine. The approach of dialogical bioethics has proven fruitful for resolving bioethical problems such as that of medical futility, where approaches of substantive ethics have reached an impasse. There is room for further study of special challengeswithin dialogical bioethics, such as the incompetence of some involved parties, conflicts of interests of third parties, and the cost-effectiveness of this ethical approach.

Keywords:  Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Philosophical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12814286     DOI: 10.1023/A:1023431310918

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Care Anal        ISSN: 1065-3058


  11 in total

Review 1.  What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment?

Authors:  C Charles; T Whelan; A Gafni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model.

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  The rise and fall of the futility movement.

Authors:  P R Helft; M Siegler; J Lantos
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-27       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  A meta-ethical critique of care ethics.

Authors:  A Rudnick
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2001

5.  Bioethics at century's turn: Can normative ethics be retrieved?

Authors:  E D Pellegrino
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2000-12

6.  A multi-institution collaborative policy on medical futility.

Authors:  A Halevy; B A Brody
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-08-21       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  An anthropological exploration of contemporary bioethics: the varieties of common sense.

Authors:  L Turner
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Mutual persuasion as a model for doctor-patient communication.

Authors:  D H Smith; L S Pettegrew
Journal:  Theor Med       Date:  1986-06

9.  Progress in the futility debate.

Authors:  R D Truog
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  1995

10.  Keeping moral space open. New images of ethics consulting.

Authors:  M U Walker
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1993 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

View more
  2 in total

1.  Understanding respect: learning from patients.

Authors:  N W Dickert; N E Kass
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Processes and pitfalls of dialogical bioethics.

Authors:  Abraham Rudnick
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2007-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.