Abstract
This paper critically appraises the applied action-guide approach to bioethics and finds it wanting in two ways: it is tethered to a social contract view of the doctor-patient relationship that is largely incompatible with experiences of illness and care; and, as a formalist doctrine, it lacks critical edge and tends toward accommodationism. An alternative approach is recommended that involves interpreting moral experience by means once associated with the rhetorical arts — practical reasoning, hermeneutics, casuistry, and thick description.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Pincoffs EL. Quandaries and Virtues. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986.
Euben JP. Philosophy and the professions. Democracy 1981; 1 (Apr): 112–27.
Walzer M. Interpretation and Social Criticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Gustafson JM. Ethics from a Theocentric Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Gustafson JM. Theology and Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1974.
Gadamer H-G. Reason in the Age of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.
Toulmin S. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspect Biol Med 1982; 25: 736–50.
Jonsen AR. Casuistry and clinical ethics. Theor Med 1986; 7: 64–74.
Toulmin S. The recovery of practical philosophy. The American Scholar 1988; 57: 337–52.
Jonsen AR, Toulmin S. The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Gray HH. Renaissance humanism: the pursuit of eloquence. Journal of the History of Ideas 1963; 24: 497–514.
Williams WC. The Farmers' Daughters. New York: New Directions, 1961.
Scruton R. Humane education. The American Scholar 1980; 49: 486–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carson, R.A. Interpretive bioethics: The way of discernment. Theor Med Bioeth 11, 51–59 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489238
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489238