Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Casuistry as bioethical method: an empirical perspective.

A Braunack-Mayer1

  • 1Department of Public Health, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia. annette.braunackmayer@adelaide.edu.au

Social Science & Medicine (1982)
|May 31, 2001
PubMed
Summary

Everyday moral reasoning uses casuistry, a method of ethical decision-making. However, this "homespun casuistry" often lacks clear examples, making its role less prominent than previously suggested.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries.

Vaccine·2020
Same author

Consumer acceptability and validity of m-Health for the detection of adverse events following immunization - The Stimulated Telephone Assisted Rapid Safety Surveillance (STARSS) randomised control trial.

Vaccine·2020
Same author

Efficacy of m-Health for the detection of adverse events following immunization - The stimulated telephone assisted rapid safety surveillance (STARSS) randomised control trial.

Vaccine·2020
Same author

Aboriginal community controlled health organisations address health equity through action on the social determinants of health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia.

BMC public health·2020
Same author

Ethical issues in funding research and development of drugs for neglected tropical diseases.

Journal of medical ethics·2009
Same author

Conflicts of interest in divisions of general practice.

Journal of medical ethics·2006

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Moral Philosophy
  • Qualitative Research

Background:

  • Casuistry, revived by Jonsen and Toulmin, is a model of bioethical reasoning.
  • Contemporary casuistry claims everyday moral reasoning is inherently casuistic.
  • Empirical evidence is needed to support this claim in ordinary moral reasoning.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the role of casuistry in everyday moral reasoning.
  • To examine the empirical basis for contemporary casuistry's claims.
  • To explore how general practitioners (GPs) use moral reasoning in practice.

Main Methods:

  • Described the casuistic method.
  • Reviewed empirical arguments by Jonsen and Toulmin.
  • Conducted qualitative research with 15 general practitioners (GPs) in South Australia.
Keywords:
Bioethics and Professional EthicsEmpirical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analyzed GPs' use of stories and anecdotes in moral reasoning.

    • Main Results:

    • GPs utilize a form of casuistry when discussing ethical dilemmas.
    • This practical casuistry often lacks clear paradigm cases for comparison.
    • The application of casuistry in everyday moral decision-making is present but subdued.

    Conclusions:

    • Casuistic reasoning appears to play a role in everyday moral decision-making.
    • The role of casuistry in ordinary moral reasoning may be less pronounced than proposed by proponents.
    • Further research could explore the nuances of practical casuistry in professional ethics.