Advertisement

Richard Zaner and “Standard” Medical Ethics

  • Stephen HansonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 997)

Abstract

To an analytic philosopher, reading some of Richard Zaner’s writings can be strangely challenging. Such frustrations can lead to a belief that there is a strong divide between Zaner’s case-focused approach to bioethics and certain theoretical approaches, such as Engelhardt’s principle of permission or specified principlism. This apparent divide might lead one to think that practitioners of the two types of thinking will have difficulty in communicating with each other, and even more difficulty with working together. To think this way would be to discard a very productive union. More traditional forms of bioethical theory are important at least in part because of the impact that they can have upon clinical case judgment, and so should not only be compatible with methods of case analysis, but should also bring something useful to bear in such analysis. The reverse is true as well, that clinical case analysis should be compatible with, and contribute to, the larger bioethical theory. I argue that this sort of symbiotic and mutually supportive relationship does indeed exist between standard bioethics and Zanerian case analysis. In this article, I explicate just one contribution of Zanerian clinical analysis to more general thought about bioethical theory; in the process of doing so, I also show the compatibility of clinical and theoretical bioethics, as well as further ways in which the two types of thinking about medical ethics can productively interact.

Keywords

Moral Issue Health Care Team Clinical Ethic Coherent System Reflective Equilibrium 
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.

References

  1. Beauchamp, T. L. “Ethical Theory and the Problem of Closure.” In Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., and Arthur L. Caplan, eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 1987, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. The Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2001.Google Scholar
  3. DeGrazia, D. “Common Morality, Coherence, and the Principles of Biomedical Ethics.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3): 219–230, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Engelhardt, H. T., Jr., and Wildes, K. W. “The Four Principles of Health Care Ethics and Post-modernity: Why a Libertarian Interpretation Is Unavoidable.” In Principles of Health Care Ethics, R. Gillon, ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 1994, pp. 135–147.Google Scholar
  5. Engelhardt, H. T., Jr., The Foundations of Bioethics, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press), 1996.Google Scholar
  6. Feigenbaum, F., Sulmasy, D. P., Pellegrino, E. D., and Henderson, F. C. “Spondyloptotic fracture of the cervical spine in a pregnant, anemic Jehovah’s Witness: technical and ethical considerations.” Journal of Neurosurgery 87(3):458–463, September 1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanson, S. S. “Moral Acquaintances: Loewy, Wildes, and Beyond.” HEC Forum, 19(4), 207–225, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. Loewy, E. Moral Strangers, Moral Acquaintance, and Moral Friends (New York: State University of New York Press), 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Rawls, J. “The Independence of Moral Theory”, Presidential Address, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 1974–1975, 8.Google Scholar
  10. Richardson, H. “Specifying Norms as a Way to Resolve Concrete Ethical Problems.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 279–310, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. Wiggins, O. P. and Schwartz, M. A. “Richard Zaner’s Phenomenology of the Clinical Encounter.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26(1): 73–87, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wildes, K. W, S.J. Moral Acquaintances: Methodology in Bioethics. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press), 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Zaner, R. M. “On Evoking Clinical Meaning.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31(6): 655–666, December 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zaner, R. M. Ethics and the Clinical Encounter. (Edgewater Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations