Theoretical Medicine

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 113–131 | Cite as

The hyperreality of clinical ethics: A unitary theory and hermeneutics

  • Henk Ten Have
Article

Abstract

Medical ethics nowadays is dominated by a conception of ethics as the application of moral theories and principles. This conception is criticized for its depreciation of the internal morality of medical practice and its narrow view of external morality. This view reflects both a lack of interest in the empirical realities of medicine and a neglect of the socio-cultural value-contexts of medical ethical issues, including the creative development of a broader philosophical framework for a practicable medical ethics. Several alternative approaches and conceptions have been proposed. The unified clinical ethics theory, developed by Graber and Thomasma, is an interesting attempt to synthesize these alternative approaches. It correctly identifies as the crucial problem the present disconnectedness of medical ethics from theoretical philosophy as well as the practice of medicine. In this paper, however, it is argued that the unitary theory should take more serious attention to the hermeneutic character of medicine as well as ethics. This implies that the unitary theory must in fact transform itself into aninterpretive clinical ethics theory. The theoretical characteristics and practical consequences of an interpretive theory of medical ethics are discussed in the present paper.

Key words

clinical ethics interpretive clinical ethics theory unitary theory hermeneutics theory and practice in ethics philosophy of medicine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudrillard J.Amérique. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graber GC, Thomasma DC.Theory and Practice in Medical Ethics. New York: Continuum, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Downie RS.Roles and Values. An Introduction of Social Ethics. London: Methuen, 1974:1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ten Have H, van der Arend A. Philosophy of medicine in the Netherlands.Theor Med 1985;6:1–42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Editorial. Medical ethics: should medicine turn the other cheek?The Lancet 1990:846–847.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vandenbroucke JP. Medische ethiek en gezondheidsrecht: hinderpalen voor de verdere toename van kennis in de geneeskunde?Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1990;134:5–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baier A.Postures of the Mind. Essays on Mind and Morals. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kass LR. Practicing ethics: where's the action?Hast Ctr Rep 1990;20:5–12.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ten Have H.Een hippocratische erfenis: ethiek in de medische praktijk. London: De Tijdstroom, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Beaufort ID, Dupuis HM.Handboek gezondheidsethiek. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988:19–20.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brody B, ed.Moral Theory and Moral Judgments in Medical Ethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ., 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonsen AR. Practice versus theory.Hast Ctr Rep 1990;20:32–34.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox RC, Swazey JP. Medical morality is not bioethics — Medical ethics in China and the United States.Per Biol Med 1984;27:337–360, Quote:360.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engelbardt HT Jr.The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Callahan D. Minimalist ethics. On the pacification of morality. In Caplan AL, Callahan D, eds.,Ethics in Hard Times. New York: Plenum Press, 1981;261–281.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor C.Sources of the Self. The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox RC.The Sociology of Medicine. A Participant Observer's View. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomasma DC. The philosophy of medicine in Europe: challenges for the future.Theor Med 1985;6:115–123.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams B. Consequentialism and integrity. In Scheffler S, ed.Consequentialism and Its Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988:20–50.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor C.Sources of the Self.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ten Have H, Kimsma GK. Changing conceptions of medical ethics. In Jensen UJ, Mooney G, eds.,Changing Values in Medical and Health Care Decision Making. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons, 1990:33–51.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen UJ. From good medical practice to best medical practice.Int J Health Plan Mgt 1989;4:167–180.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaner RM.Ethics and the Clinical Encounter. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carson RA. Interpretive bioethics: the way of discernment.Theor Med 1990;11:51–59.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brody H.Stories of Sickness. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jonsen AR, Toulmin S.The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC.For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988;The Virtues in Medical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Callahan D.What Kind of Life: The Limits of Medical Progress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Halman L, Heunks F, de Moor R, Zanders H.Traditie, secularisatie en individualisering. Een studie naar de waarden van de Nederlanders in een Europese context. Tilburg: University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Inglehardt R.Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weisz G, ed.Social Science Prespectives on Medical Ethics. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publ., 1990.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Graber, Thomasma: 176.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jonsen, Toulmin.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Graber, Thomasma.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid: 194.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid: 196.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid: 201.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    See note 9. Ten Have.Een hippocratische erfenis.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    See note 21. Ten Have., Kimsma.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Tongeren P. Ethiek en praktijk.Filosofie & Praktijk 1988;9:113–127.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
    Kollemorten I,et al. Ethical aspects of clinical decision-making.J Med Eth 1981;7:67–69.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bosk CL.Forgive and Remember: Managing Medical Failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  44. 44.

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk Ten Have
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of MedicineKatholieke Universiteit NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations