Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 5–18 | Cite as

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

  • Friedrich Heubel
  • Nikola Biller-Andorno
Article

Abstract

Kantian deontology is one of three classic moral theories, among virtue ethics and consequentialism. Issues in medical ethics are frequently addressed within a Kantian paradigm, at least – although not exclusively – in European medical ethics. At the same time, critical voices have pointed to deficits of Kantian moral philosophy which must be examined and discussed. It is argued that taking concrete situations and complex relationships into account is of paramount importance in medical ethics. Encounters between medical or nursing staff and patients are rarely symmetrical relationships between autonomous and rational agents. Kantian ethics, the criticism reads, builds on the lofty ideal of such a relationship. In addition to the charge of an individualist and rationalist focus on autonomy, Kantian ethics has been accused of excluding those not actually in possession of these properties or of its rigorism. It is said to be focussed on laws and imperatives to an extent that it cannot appreciate the complex nuances of real conflicts. As a more detailed analysis will show, these charges are inadequate in at least some regards. This will be demonstrated by drawing on the Kantian notion of autonomy, the role of maxims and judgment and the conception of duties, as well as the role of emotions. Nevertheless the objections brought forward against Kantian moral theory can help determine, with greater precision, its strengths and shortcomings as an approach to current problems in medical ethics.

Keywords

criticism deontology Immanuel Kant medical ethics moral theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baier, A. C. 1995The Need for More than JusticeHeld, Virginia eds. Justice and Care. Essential Readings in Feminist EthicsHarper CollinsBoulder, CO4758Google Scholar
  2. Baumann-Hölzle, R. 1999Autonomie und Freiheit in der Medizinethik. Immanuel Kant und Karl BarthAlberFreiburg/MünchenGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F. 2001Principles of Biomedical Ethics5Oxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckmann, J.P. 1998‘Patientenverfügungen: Autonomie und Selbstbestimmung vor dem Hintergrund eines im Wandel begriffenen Arzt-Patient-Verhältnisses’Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik44143156Google Scholar
  5. Benhabib, S. 1998The Generalized and The Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Controversy and Moral TheoryKittay, E.F.Meyers, D.T. eds. Women and Moral TheoryRowman and LittlefieldTotowa, NJ154177Google Scholar
  6. Biller-Andorno, N. 2001Gerechtigkeit und FürsorgeCampusFrankfurt a.M./New YorkZur Möglichkeit einer integrativen Medizinethik.Google Scholar
  7. Brandt, R. 2001Philosophie Eine EinführungPhilipp Reclam jun.Stuttgart191Google Scholar
  8. Carse, A.L. 1998‘Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory’Journal of Medicine and Philosophy23153169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eibach, U. 1997‘Vom Paternalismus zur Autonomie des Patienten? Medizinische Ethik im Spannungsfeld zwischen einer Ethik der Fürsorge und einer Ethik der Autonmie’Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik43215231Google Scholar
  10. Engelhardt, T.H. 1996The Foundations of Bioethics2Oxford University PressOxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Flanagan, O.J. Jr., J.E.: 1983, ‘Impartiality and Particularity’, Social Research 50 (3), 576–596.Google Scholar
  12. Green, R.M. 2001‘What Does it Mean to Use Someone as ”A Means Only”: Rereading Kant’Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal11247262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregor, M.J.: 1996, Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy. Translated und edited by Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge University Press. (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant).Google Scholar
  14. Herman, B. 1993The Practice of Moral JudgementHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Höffe, O. 1979Ethik und PolitikSuhrkampFrankfurt a.M.8693Google Scholar
  16. Kant, Immanuel: Kants Gesammelte Schriften, edited by the Royal Prussian (later German) Academy of Sciences. Berlin, Georg Reimer, later Walter deGruyter & Co., 1900-).–Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals in vol. 4; Critique of practical reason in vol. 5; The metaphysics of morals in vol. 6; Toward perpetual peace in vol. 8.Google Scholar
  17. Kordelas, L., Grond-Ginsbach, C. 2000‘Kant über die ”moralische Waghälsigkeit der Pockenimpfung’ International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine82233Google Scholar
  18. Nagl-Docekal, H. 1993Jenseits der Geschlechtermoral. Eine EinführungNagl-Docekal, H.Pauer-Studer, H. eds. Jenseits der Geschlechtermoral. Beiträge zur feministischen Ethik.FischerFrankfurt a.M.732Google Scholar
  19. Nelson, H.L. 1997IntroductionNelson, H.L. eds. Stories and Their Limits–Narrative Approaches to BioethicsRoutledgeNew York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Neill, O. 1993‘Einverständnis und Verletzbarkeit: Eine Neubewertung von Kants Begriff der Achtung für Personen’Nagl-Docekal, H.Pauer-Studer, H. eds. Jenseits der Geschlechtermoral. Beiträge zur feministischen EthikFrankfurt a.M.Fischer335367Google Scholar
  21. O’Neill, O.: 2003Autonomy: 2003, ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’Supplement to the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society77121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pauer-Studer, H. 1996Das Andere der Gerechtigkeit. Moraltheorie im Kontext der GeschlechterdifferenzAkademie-VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Schöne-Seifert, B. 1996MedizinethikNida-Rümelin, J. eds. Angewandte Ethik. Die Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische FundierungKrönerStuttgart552648Google Scholar
  24. Sherman, N. 1990‘The Place of Emotions in Kantian Morality’Flanagan, O.Rorty Amélie, O. eds. Identity, Character, and Morality: Essays in Moral PsychologyMIT PressCambridge, MA149170Google Scholar
  25. Steigleder, K. 2002Kants Moralphilosophie. Die Selbstbezüglichkeit reiner praktischer VernunftMetzler Stuttgart/WeimarGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas, L. 1990‘Trust, Affirmation, and Moral Character: A Critique of Kantian Morality’Flanagan, O.Rorty Amélie, O. eds. Identity, Character, and Morality: Essays in Moral PsychologyMIT PressCambridge, MA235257Google Scholar
  27. Hooft, S. 1996‘Bioethics and caring’Journal of Medical Ethics228389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. White, B.C. 1994Competence to ConsentGeorgetown University PressWashington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philipps UniversityMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical EthicsCharité-University MedicineBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations