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

Internal and external standards for medical morality.

T L Beauchamp1

  • 1The Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA. Beauchat@georgetown.edu

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|December 6, 2001
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

Viewpoint: why our conceptions of research and practice may not serve the best interest of patients and subjects.

Journal of internal medicine·2011
Same author

Engelhardt's foundations.

Reason papers·2004
Same author

Methods and principles in biomedical ethics.

Journal of medical ethics·2003
Same author

The autonomy turn in physician-assisted suicide.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences·2000
Same author

Reply to Strong on principlism and casuistry.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2000
Same author

The medical ethics of physician-assisted suicide.

Journal of medical ethics·2000
Same journal

Neurobiological Determinism versus Human Freedom: Competing Explanatory Models and the Hope for Moral Enhancement.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Zygotes are Persisting Organisms.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Ethical Examination of Genetic Enhancement from the Perspective of Confucian Human Dignity.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Reproducing Anachronism: Ageing, Fertility and Inequality in Reproductive Governance.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Genetic Moral Enhancement-A View Based on Mencius' Theory of Human Nature.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Egalitarian Justice and the Prevalence Principle in Human Genome Editing.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
See all related articles

This study explores the justification of medical ethics, proposing a new integrated approach. It critiques existing internal, external, and mixed models to offer a more comprehensive framework for medical ethics grounding.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Philosophy of Medicine
  • Bioethics

Background:

  • The justification of conclusions in medical ethics is debated, with questions about whether the source is internal or external to the medical field.
  • Existing literature presents three main perspectives: internal accounts (ethics derived from medicine's ends or practice standards), external accounts (ethics justified by public opinion, law, religion, or philosophy), and mixed accounts (ethics emerging from distinct cultural frameworks).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically analyze the strengths and limitations of existing internal, external, and mixed accounts of medical ethics justification.
  • To propose a novel, fourth account that integrates the valuable aspects of the three dominant perspectives while overcoming their respective shortcomings.

Main Methods:

  • A critical review and analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of three influential models in medical ethics literature.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBioethics and Professional EthicsPhilosophical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Development of a theoretical framework for a new, integrated approach to justifying medical ethics.

    • Main Results:

    • Each of the three existing accounts (internal, external, mixed) has merit but also overreaches and fails to fully acknowledge the valid points of competing perspectives.
    • The proposed fourth account aims to synthesize the attractive features of the existing models while mitigating their limitations.

    Conclusions:

    • A new, integrated approach to medical ethics justification is needed to overcome the limitations of current internal, external, and mixed models.
    • This proposed fourth account offers a more comprehensive and balanced framework for grounding medical ethics, drawing from the strengths of prior theories.