Bioethics, Deliberation and Argumentation

  • José-Antonio SeoaneEmail author
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 70)


Healthcare professions deal with different elements: facts, values, duties, norms. Due to its suitability for harmonize factual and normative dimension, deliberation has been deemed the most appropriate method for clinical decision-making. Doctor-patient relationship can be understood as a process of deliberation, and ethical review boards or commissions are also instances of deliberation, fostering a communal dialogue among health care professionals, patients and society. Deliberative reason is shared by healthcare professions, ethics and law. By means of argumentation, uncertainty, probability, reasonability and practical wisdom, deliberation process aims to achieve wise and prudent decisions about health care. The chapter introduces the structure and main features of the deliberative method for clinical decision-making and suggests some improvements in its structure, foundations and implementation making use of some contributions of the theories of argumentation.


Healthcare Professional Final Decision Ethical Problem Level Versus Legal Norm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aarnio, Aulis. 1987. The rational as reasonable. A treatise on legal justification. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Alexy, Robert. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Trans. Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. 1926. Art of Rhetoric. Trans. John Henry Freese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aubenque, Pierre. 1963. La prudence chez Aristotes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gracia, Diego. 1991. Procedimientos de decisión en ética clínica. Madrid: Eudema.Google Scholar
  8. Gracia, Diego. 2001a. La deliberación moral: el método de la ética clínica. Medicina Clínica 117: 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gracia, Diego. 2001b. La deliberación moral. Boletín de la Academia Chilena de Medicina XXXVIII: 29–45.Google Scholar
  10. Gracia, Diego. 2001c. Moral deliberation: The role of methodologies in clinical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gracia, Diego. 2003. Ethical case deliberation and decision making. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gracia, Diego. 2004. La deliberación moral: el método de la ética clínica. In Ética en la práctica clínica, ed. Diego Gracia and Javier Júdez, 21–32. Madrid: Triacastela.Google Scholar
  13. Gracia, Diego. 2005. The foundations of medical ethics in the democratic evolution of modern society. In Clinical bioethics. A search for foundations, ed. Corrado Viafora, 33–40. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gracia, Diego. 2007. Prólogo a la segunda edición (2007). In Procedimientos de decisión en ética clínica (1991), 1–8. Madrid: Triacastela.Google Scholar
  15. Gracia, Diego. 2010. Philosophy: Ancient and contemporary approaches. In Methods in medical ethics, 2nd ed, ed. Sugarman Jeremy and Daniel P. Sulmasy, 55–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gracia, Diego. 2011a. Deliberation and consensus. In The SAGE handbook of health care ethics: Core and emerging issues, ed. Chadwick Ruth, Henk ten Have, and Eric M. Meslin, 84–94. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington, DC: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gracia, Diego. 2011b. Teoría y práctica de la deliberación moral. In Bioética: el estado de la cuestión, ed. Lydia Feito, Diego Gracia, and Miguel Sánchez, 101–154. Madrid: Triacastela.Google Scholar
  18. Gracia, Diego. 2013. Valor y precio. Madrid: Triacastela.Google Scholar
  19. Gracia, Diego y Rodríguez Sendín, Juan José (dir.). 2006. Guías de Ética en la práctica médica 2. Ética en cuidados paliativos, Madrid: Fundación de Ciencias de la Salud.Google Scholar
  20. Gracia, Diego y Rodríguez Sendín, Juan José (dir.). 2012. Guías de Ética en la práctica médica 6. Retos éticos en Atención Primaria, Madrid: Fundación de Ciencias de la Salud.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Wahrheitstheorien. In Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 127–183. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  22. Kant, Immanuel. 1911. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785). In Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, vol. IV, ed. Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 385–463. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Kant, Immanuel. 1928. Zum ewigen Frieden (1795). In Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, vol. VIII, ed. Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 341–386. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Perelman, Chaïm and L. Olbrechts-Tytteca. 1969. The New Rethoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  25. Seoane, José Antonio. 2008. La relación clínica del siglo XXI: cuestiones médicas, éticas y jurídicas. Derecho y Salud 16(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
  26. Williams, Bernard. 2002. Truth & truthfulness. An essay in genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group Philosophy, Constitution and Rationality, School of LawUniversidade da CoruñaA CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations