Skip to main content
Log in

The Ground of Dialogical Bioethics

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dialogical ethics are a procedural alternative to substantive ethics such as consequentialism, deontology, principlism, casuistry, virtue ethics and care ethics. Dialogical ethics are procedural in that they do not establish goods in advance, unlike substantive ethics, but rather determine goods through a procedure enacted by the actual parties involved (although some substantive notion of justice may still be required); and they are dialogical in that the procedure is that of dialogue, involving both empathic critical discussion and negotiation. A fundamental tenet of dialogical ethics may be the use of appropriate rules of order regulating dialogue among the parties involved. Some of the central characteristics of such rules of order are that they are reciprocally regulated by dialogue, that they override other ethical considerations, and that they institute empathic critical discussion and negotiation within the ethical dialogue. Dialogical bioethics are the application of dialogical ethics to ethical problems in medicine. The approach of dialogical bioethics has proven fruitful for resolving bioethical problems such as that of medical futility, where approaches of substantive ethics have reached an impasse. There is room for further study of special challenges within dialogical bioethics, such as the incompetence of some involved parties, conflicts of interests of third parties, and the cost-effectiveness of this ethical approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, B. (1989) Why Diagloue? Journal of Philosophy 86, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1976) Nicomachean Ethics (revised by Hugh Tredennick). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, L.A. (1993) Rethinking Ethics in the Midst of Violence: A Feminist Approach to Freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littelfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber, M. (1996) I and Thou. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C., Gafni, A. and Whelan, T. (1997) Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What does it Mean? (Or it Takes at Least Two to Tango). Social Science and Medicine 44, 681–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C., Gafni, A. and Whelan, T. (1999) Decision-making in the Physician-patient Encounter: Revisiting the Shared Treatment Decision-making Model. Social Science and Medicine 49, 651–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C., Whelan, T. and Gafni, A. (1999) What Do We Mean by Partnership in Making Decisions About Treatment? British Medical Journal 319, 780–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1993) Justification and Application. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, A. and Brody, B.A. (1996) A Multi-institution Collaborative Policy on Medical Futility. Journal of the American Medical Association 276, 517–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helft, P.R., Siegler, M. and Lantos, J. (2000) The Rise and Fall of the Futility Movement. New England Journal of Medicine 343, 293–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehn, D. (1998) Rethinking Feminist Ethics: Care, Trust and Empathy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, E.D. (2000) Bioethics at Century's Turn: Can Normative Ethics Be Retrieved? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25, 655–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato (1971) Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.R. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K.R. (1972) Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehg, W. (1994) Insight and Solidarity: A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jurgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, H.M. (1990) The Scott Foresman Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Glenview, IL: Scott Forseman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, S. (1988) When Doctors Say No: The Battelground of Medical Futility. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudnick, A. (2001) A Meta-ethical Critique of Care Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22, 505–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1993) Practical Ethics, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.H. and Pettegrew, L.S. (1986) Mutual Persuasion as a Model for Doctor-patient Communication. Theoretical Medicine 7, 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troug, R.D. (1995) Progress in the Futility Debate. Journal of Clinical Ethics 6, 128–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner L. (1998) An Anthropological Exploration of Contemporary Bioethics: The Varieties of Common Sense. Journal of Medical Ethics 24, 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M.U. (1993) Keeping Moral Spaces Open. Hastings Center Report 23, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. (1992) The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudnick, A. The Ground of Dialogical Bioethics. Health Care Analysis 10, 391–402 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023431310918

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023431310918

Navigation