Advertisement

Guided Autonomy and Good Friend Physicians

  • Janet SmithEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 110)

Abstract

The professional discipline of bioethics for some time now has seemed to be concerned primarily with two major questions.1 One is how various ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, natural law ethics, principlism, feminist care ethics or casuistry (and perhaps other systems as well) would assess a certain action, e.g., assisted suicide or cloning.

Keywords

Health Care Professional Adult Child Religious Commitment Assisted Suicide Multiple Chemical Sensitivity 
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. Ackerman, T.F. 1982. Why doctors should intervene, Hasting Center Report 12:14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahronheim, J.C., J.D. Moreno and C. Zukerman. 2000.Ethics in clinical practice, 2nd edition. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  3. Apostle, G.H., Trans. 1984. Aristotle’s nicomachean ethics. Grinnell, IA: Peripatetic.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, J. 2002. Limiting access to health care: A traditional roman catholic analysis, In Allocating scarce medical resources: Roman Catholic perspectives eds. H.T. Engelhardt and M. Cherry, 77–95. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Crigger, B. 1998. Cases in bioethics, 3rd edition. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  6. Elliott, C. 2000. A new way to be mad, Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 2000. Available on-line at: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/elliott.htm. Accessed 04 Sep 2010.
  7. Engelhardt, H.T., Jr. 1996. The foundations of bioethics, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Faden, R. and T. Beauchamp 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, J.M. and K. McDonnell 2001. Tough decisions: Cases in medical ethics, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grisez, G. 1997. The way of the lord Jesus: Difficult moral questions vol. 3. Quincy, IL: Franciscan.Google Scholar
  11. Macklin, R. 1977. Consent, coercion, and conflict of rights. Perspectives in biology and medicine 20:360–371.Google Scholar
  12. Malloy, S.E.W. 1998. Beyond misguided paternalism: Resuscitating the right to refuse medical treatment. Wake Forest L. Review 33:1035–1093.Google Scholar
  13. Nelson, H.L. 1977. Stories and their limits: narrative approaches to bioethics. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Ross, W.D., Trans. 1979.Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, J. 1997. The pre-eminence of autonomy in bioethics, In Human lives: Critical essays on consequentialist bioethics eds. D. Oderberg and J.A. Laing. London: McMillan 182–195.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, J. 1998. Veritatis splendor, proportionalism, and contraception. Irish Theological Quarterly 63:307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, J. 1999. Moral terminology and proportionalism, InRecovering nature : Essays in natural philosophy, ethics, and metaphysics in honor of Ralph McInerny, eds. T. Hibbs and J. O’Callaghan, 127–146 Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Wildes, K. 2000. Moral acquaintances: Methodology in bioethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sacred Heart Major SeminaryDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations