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

Natural resources for morality: commentary.

Friedrich Heubel

    The Journal of Clinical Ethics
    |July 1, 1991
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    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

    [Assisted suicide - The German Federal Supreme Court adheres to punishability of mercy killing on request].

    Der Nervenarzt·2023
    Same author

    [In process].

    Pflege Zeitschrift·2018
    Same author

    The "soul of professionalism" in the Hippocratic Oath and today.

    Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2014
    Same author

    Kant and medical ethics. Introduction to the theme.

    Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2005
    Same author

    The contribution of Kantian moral theory to contemporary medical ethics: a critical analysis.

    Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2005
    Same author

    Healthcare professionals, roles and virtue.

    Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·1992
    Same journal

    What Should Be Our Utmost Goals in Teaching Medical Students Ethics.

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    How Should Physicians Interpret Legislatures' Lists of Exceptions to Abortion Restrictions?

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    ECMO Used for the Benefit of a Patient's Family: Case Study.

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    How Should Pregnancy-Related Morbidity and Mortality in Abortion-Restricted States Be Documented, Collected, and Reported After <i>Dobbs</i>?

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    The Latest Data on Medical Aid in Dying in the United States and What It Tells Us.

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    How Should Researchers Study Abortion Care Later in Pregnancy After <i>Dobbs</i>?

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    See all related articles

    This analysis critically examines Loewy's proposed "universally acceptable" grounding for clinical ethics, questioning its foundational validity and challenging established ethical frameworks. The study explores the definition and applicability of ethical "grounding" in medical practice.

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Clinical Ethics
    • Moral Philosophy

    Background:

    • Review of existing ethical frameworks including virtue ethics, casuistry, Kantian ethics, and utilitarianism.
    • Identification of Loewy's critique and rejection of these traditional ethical groundings in clinical settings.
    • Introduction of Loewy's novel claim for a "universally acceptable" grounding for clinical ethics.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critically analyze Loewy's proposed "universally acceptable" grounding for clinical ethics.
    • To deconstruct the concept of "grounding" as presented by Loewy and in ethical theory.
    • To evaluate the validity and robustness of Loewy's proposed ethical foundation.

    Main Methods:

    • Conceptual analysis of ethical terminology, specifically the definition of "grounding."
    Keywords:
    Analytical ApproachBioethics and Professional EthicsPhilosophical Approach

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Critical examination of Loewy's arguments and claims regarding clinical ethics.
  • Comparative analysis of Loewy's proposed grounding against established ethical theories.

    • Main Results:

    • Loewy's rejection of virtue ethics, casuistry, Kantian ethics, and utilitarianism as primary clinical ethics groundings.
    • Presentation of Loewy's alternative, "universally acceptable" grounding for clinical ethics.
    • Doubt cast on whether Loewy's proposed alternatives function as true "groundings" in the strict philosophical sense.

    Conclusions:

    • The study raises significant questions about the nature and sufficiency of Loewy's proposed ethical grounding.
    • Further rigorous analysis is required to validate the proposed "universally acceptable" foundation for clinical ethics.
    • The strict definition of "grounding" in ethics remains a critical point of contention for proposed frameworks.