Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Towards an empirical ethics in care: relations with technologies in health care

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the approach of empirical ethics, a form of ethics that integrates non-positivist ethnographic empirical research and philosophy. Empirical ethics as it is discussed here builds on the ‘empirical turn’ in epistemology. It radicalizes the relational approach that care ethics introduced to think about care between people by drawing in relations between people and technologies as things people relate to. Empirical ethics studies care practices by analysing their intra-normativity, or the ways of living together the actors within these practices strive for or bring about as good practices. Different from care ethics, what care is and if it is good is not defined beforehand. A care practice may be contested by comparing it to alternative practices with different notions of good care. By contrasting practices as different ways of living together that are normatively oriented, suggestions for the best possible care may be argued for. Whether these suggestions will actually be put to practice is, however, again a relational question; new actors need to re-localize suggestions, to make them work in new practices and fit them in with local intra-normativities with their particular routines, material infrastructures, know-how and strivings.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The classic reference is to Beauchamp and Childress (2002).

  2. Some care ethics take the mother-child relation as exemplary (Noddings 1984). Other kinds of caring relations have dynamics that differ from the professional caring relation. See for instance studies in care for animals (Folker et al. 2009), for the dynamics of care at home rather than in the hospital (Milligan 2009); for older people Ceci et al. (2011); care for patients in combination with training doctors (Wallenburg et al. 2013); and care by managers (Grit 2004) or for science (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011).

  3. There are other forms of empirical ethics, see Willems and Pols (2010), Molewijk et al. (2004).

  4. See for the empirical turn in epistemology: Latour (1987a, b), Law (1999), Mol (2002), and for the empirical turn in ethics: Mol (2010), Pols (2008, 2012, 2013), López and Domènech (2009), Willems (2010), Winance (2010), Willems and Pols (2010).

  5. This is the fruit of two 3 year projects. The research started in 2005 with a grant from NWO, The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, from the program Ethics, Research and Policy: Care at a distance. A normative investigation into telecare. The second project was called EFORTT, a research program funded by the European Community, seventh Framework program: Ethical Frameworks for Telecare Technologies for older people at home.

  6. This is a good example of the re-scribing of one’s object of research right away. By turning the stories and practices of many into two narratives, I hope to bring the cases to life for the reader, at the cost of particular nuances and perspectives, and at the favour of others.

  7. Different from Schicktanz et al. (2012) I do not see this as a correction of a lack of epistemological grounds for ‘making ethicists speak’, but as a way of showing the complexity of making weak voices heard.

References

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2002. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, C., K. Björnsdóttir, and M.E. Purkis (eds.). 2011. Perspectives on care at home for older people. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folker, M.P., M.N. Svendsen, and L. Koch. 2009. Lifeworlds of the pig: Towards a carthography of porcine/human entanglements. In Investigating human/animal relations in science, Culture and Work, ed. T. Holmberg, 142–153. Uppsala: Centrum för Genusvetenskap, Uppsala Univaersitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grit, Kor. 2004. Corporate citizenship: How to strengthen the social responsibility of managers? Journal Business Ethics 53(1&2): 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1991. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs and women. The reinvention of nature, ed. D. Haraway. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbers, H. 2005. Epilogue: Political materials–material politics. In Inside the politics of technology. Agency and normativity in the co-production of technology and society, ed. H. Harbers, 257–272. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlen, Helen. 2009. Conflicts of care, hospital ethics committees in the USA and Germany. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton Unviversity Press.

  • Latour, B. 1987a. The pasteurization of French Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1987b. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. 1999. After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In Actor network theory and after, ed. J. Law, and J. Hassard, 1–14. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leget, C., C. Gastmans, M.A. Verkerk (red.). 2011. Care, compassion and recognition: An ethical discussion. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.

  • López, D., and M. Domènech. 2009. Embodying autonomy in a home telecare service. The Sociological Review 56: 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, C. 2009. There’s no place like home: People, place and care in an ageing society. Aldershot: Ashgate Geographies Health Book Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. 2010. Care and its values. Good food in the nursing home. In Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, ed. A. Mol, I. Moser, and J. Pols, 215–234. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molewijk, B., A.M. Stiggelbout, W. Otten, H.M. Dupuis, and J. Kievit. 2004. Empirical data and moral theory. A ple a for integrated empirical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7: 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, I. 2010. Perhaps tears should not be counted but wiped away. On quality and improvement in dementia care. In Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, ed. A. Mol, I. Moser, and J. Pols, 277–300. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, I., and J. Law. 1999. Good passages, bad passages. In Actor network theory and after, ed. J. Law, and J. Hassard, 196–219. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pols, A.J. 2006. Washing the citizen: Washing, cleanliness and citizenship in mental health care. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry 30(1): 77–104.

  • Pols, J., 2008. Which empirical research, whose ethics? Articulating ideals in long-term mental health care. In Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry (eds) G. Widdershoven, T. Hope, L. Van der Scheer, & J. McMillan, 51–68. Oxford University Press.

  • Pols, J., Schermer, M., and Willems, D. 2010. Telezorgvisie essay over ontwikkelingen en beloften van telezorg in de nederlandse gezondheidszorg (Essay for policymakers on telecare, for NWO project care at a distance). Amsterdam: AMC.

  • Pols, J., 2012. Care at a distance. On the closeness of technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • Pols, J., 2013. The chronification of illness. An empirical ethics in care. www.oratiereeks.nl.

  • Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2011. Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science 41(1): 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schicktanz, S., M. Schweda, and B. Wynne. 2012. The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’—Why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5(2): 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998) Citizenship and the ethics of care feminist considerations on justice, morality and politics new York: Routledge.

  • Sevenhuijsen, S. 2000. Caring in the third way: The relation between obligation, responsibility and care in third way discourse. Critical Social Policy 20: 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton: Princetone University press.

  • Tonkens, E.H., and J. Newman. 2010. Active citizenship: Responsibility, participation and choice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk, M.A. 2007. Care ethics as a feminist perspective on bioethics. In: New pathways for European Bioethics. Gastmans, C.E.A. (ed) Antwerpen/Oxford: Intersentia, 65–81.

  • Walker, M.U. 2007. Moral understandings: A feminist study in ethics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenburg, I., A. de Bont, M.J. Heineman, F. Scheele, and P. Meurs. 2013. Learning to doctor: Tinkering with visibility in residency training. Sociology of Health & Illness 35(4): 544–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, D., and J. Pols. 2010. Goodness! The empirical turn in health care ethics. Medische Antropologie, 22(1):161–170.

  • Willems, D. 2010. Varieties of goodness in high-tech home care. In Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, ed. A. Mol, I. Moser, and J. Pols, 257–276. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winance, M. 2010. Care and disability. Practices of experimenting, tinkering with, and arranging people and technical aids. In Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, ed. A. Mol, I. Moser, and J. Pols, 93–118. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations/Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A word of thanks to the ‘Philosophy of Care’ group for their comments and suggestions, and to the two anonymous reviewers for the journal for their constructive feedback. The work on empirical ethics in care is a collective project, for which I thank Dick Willems, Ingunn Moser, Hilde Thygesen, Annemarie Mol, Daniël Lopez, Juan Carlos Aceros, Miquel Domenech, Christine Ceci and Mary Ellen Purkis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeannette Pols.

Additional information

This paper is the journal version of Pols (2013). This bookchapter is restructured into a journal paper and got a new introduction and structure. The analysis is updated, but the argument is largely the same as in the book.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pols, J. Towards an empirical ethics in care: relations with technologies in health care. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 81–90 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9582-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9582-9

Keywords

Navigation