Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:54:57.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward Methodological Innovation in Empirical Ethics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

MICHAEL DUNN ,
MARK SHEEHAN ,
TONY HOPE  and
MICHAEL PARKER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Empirical Ethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 466 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Harris, J. The scope and importance of bioethics. In: Harris, J, ed. Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001:1–24.Google Scholar

2. Garrard, E, Wilkinson, S. Mind the gap: The use of empirical evidence in bioethics. In: Hayry, M, Takala, T, Herissone-Kelly, P, eds. Bioethics and Social Reality. Amsterdam: Rodopi; 2005:77–92.Google Scholar

3. Ashcroft, RE.Futures for bioethics? Bioethics 2010;24:ii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Hedgecoe, AM.Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 2004;18:120–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Hurst, SA.What “empirical turn in bioethics”? Bioethics 2010;24:439–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Hedgecoe, AM. Medical sociology and the redundancy of empirical ethics. In: Ashcroft, RE, Dawson, A, Draper, H, McMillan, J, eds. Principles of Healthcare Ethics. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 2007:167–76.Google Scholar

7. De Vries, R, Stanczyk, A, Wall, IF, Uhlmann, RA, Damschroder, L, Kim, SYH.Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Social Science and Medicine 2010;70:1896–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Kim, SYH, Wall, IF, Stanczyk, A, De Vries, R.Assessing the public’s views in research ethics controversies: Deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2009;4:3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Lenaghan, J, New, B, Mitchell, E.Setting priorities: Is there a role for citizens’ juries? British Medical Journal 1996;312:1591–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Wainwright, P, Gallagher, A, Tompsett, H, Atkins, C.The use of vignettes within a Delphi exercise: A useful approach in empirical ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 2010;36:656–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Haimes, E.What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 2002;16:89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. It is important to note that this (analytic philosophical) account of the convincingness of arguments is open to dispute. This is of particular importance here because many of the most well-established ways of justifying the theoretical and methodological foundations of empirical ethics research begin by taking issue with such an account. We reflect briefly on the relationship between our analysis of the value of empirical ethics and the approaches emanating from alternative philosophical traditions in ethics in the conclusions of the article.

13. Sheehan, M. Moral relativism. In: Ashcroft, RE, Dawson, A, Draper, H, McMillan, J, eds. Principles of Healthcare Ethics. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 2007:93–8.Google Scholar

14. Wiggins, D.Moral cognitivism, moral relativism and motivating moral beliefs. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1990;91:61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. See note 2, Garrard, Wilkinson 2005.

16. Rawls, J.A Theory of Justice. 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.Google Scholar

17. Scanlon, TM. Rawls on justification. In: Freeman, S, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. van Delden, JJM, van Thiel, GJM. Reflective equilibrium as a normative-empirical model in bioethics. In: van den Burg, W, van Willigenburg, T, eds. Reflective Equilibrium: Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger. Dordecht: Kluwer; 1998:251–9.Google Scholar

19. van der Burg, W, van Willigenburg, T, eds. Reflective Equilibrium: Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger. Dordecht: Kluwer; 1998.Google Scholar

20. McMillan, J, Hope, T. The possibility of empirical psychiatric ethics. In: Widdershoven, G, McMillan, J, Hope, T, van der Scheer, L, eds. Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Dunn, M, Ives, J.Methodology, epistemology and empirical bioethics research: A constructive/ist commentary. American Journal of Bioethics 2009;9:93–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. Molewijk, B, Stiggelbout, AM, Otten, W, Dupuis, HM, Kievit, J.Empirical data and moral theory: A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2004;7:55–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Widdershoven, GAM.How to combine hermeneutics and wide reflective equilibrium? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2007;10:49–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Carter, SM.Beware dichotomies and grand abstractions: Attending to particularity and practice in empirical bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 2009;9:76–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25. See note 21, Dunn, Ives 2009, at 94.

26. Ives, J, Draper, H.Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: It’s all relative. Bioethics 2009;23:249–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. Parker, M.Ethnography/ethics. Social Science and Medicine 2007;65:2248–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

28. Dunn, M, Clare, ICH, Holland, AJ.Substitute decision-making for adults with intellectual disabilities living in residential care: Learning through experience. Health Care Analysis 2008;16:52–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. Ives, J, Dunn, M.Who’s arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics 2010;24:256–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Widdershoven, G, van der Scheer, L. Theory and methodology of empirical ethics: A pragmatic hermeneutic perspective. In: Widdershoven, G, McMillan, J, Hope, T, van der Scheer, L. Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Lindemann, H, Verkerk, M, Urban Walker, M.Naturalized Bioethics: Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.Google Scholar

32. See note 22, Molewijk et al. 2004.

33. Widdershoven, G, Abma, T, Molewijk, B.Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics 2009;23:236–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

34. Widdershoven, G, Molewijk, B, Abma, T.Improving care and ethics: A plea for interactive empirical ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 2009;9:99–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

35. Frith L. Symbiotic empirical ethics: A practical methodology. Bioethics 2012;26:198–206.

36. Molewijk, AC, Abma, T, Stolper, M, Widdershoven, G.Teaching ethics in the clinic: The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008;34:120–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

37. See note 33, Widdershoven, Abma, Molewijk 2009.