Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 55–69 | Cite as

Scientific Contribution. Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics

  • Bert Molewijk
  • Anne M. Stiggelbout
  • Wilma Otten
  • Heleen M. Dupuis
  • Job Kievit
Article

Abstract

Ethicists differ considerably in their reasons for using empirical data. This paper presents a brief overview of four traditional approaches to the use of empirical data: “the prescriptive applied ethicists,” “the theorists,” “the critical applied ethicists,” and “the particularists.” The main aim of this paper is to introduce a fifth approach of more recent date (i.e. “integrated empirical ethics”) and to offer some methodological directives for research in integrated empirical ethics. All five approaches are presented in a table for heuristic purposes. The table consists of eight columns: “view on distinction descriptive-prescriptive sciences,” “location of moral authority,” “central goal(s),” “types of normativity,” “use of empirical data,” “method,” “interaction empirical data and moral theory,” and “cooperation with descriptive sciences.” Ethicists can use the table in order to identify their own approach. Reflection on these issues prior to starting research in empirical ethics should lead to harmonization of the different scientific disciplines and effective planning of the final research design. Integrated empirical ethics (IEE) refers to studies in which ethicists and descriptive scientists cooperate together continuously and intensively. Both disciplines try to integrate moral theory and empirical data in order to reach a normative conclusion with respect to a specific social practice. IEE is not wholly prescriptive or wholly descriptive since IEE assumes an interdepence between facts and values and between the empirical and the normative. The paper ends with three suggestions for consideration on some of the future challenges of integrated empirical ethics.

applied ethics descriptive-prescriptive empirical data empirical ethics fact-value integrated empirical ethics methodology moral theory social sciences types of normativity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abma, T.A.: 2001, ‘Evaluating Palliative Care: Facilitating Reflexive Dialogues about an Ambiguous Concept’, Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 4(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anspach, R.R.: 1993, Deciding Who Lives. Fateful Choices in the Intensive-Care Nursery. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bayles, M.D.: 1984, ‘Moral Theory and Application’, Social Theory and Practice 10, 97–120.Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, T.L.: 1984, ‘On Eliminating the Distinction Between Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory’, The Monist, 67, 514–531.Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, T.L. and J.F. Childress: 1994, Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 4 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, M.: 1998, ‘The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Social Theory into Technological Design’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 23(4), 456–490.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, M. and A. Mol (eds.): 2001, Ingebouwde normen. Medische technieken doorgelicht [Built in Norms. Medical Technologies Examined]. Utrecht: Van der Wees.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbacher, D.: 1999, ‘Ethics and Social Science: Which Kind of Co-operation?’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosk, C.L.: 1979, Forgive and Remember. Managing Medical Care. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brey, P.: 2000, ‘Disclosive Computer Ethics: The Exposure and Evaluation of Embedded Normativity in Computer Technology’, Computers and Society 30(4), 10–16.Google Scholar
  11. Brock, D.W.: 1991, ‘The Ideal of Shared Decision Making Between Physicians and Patients’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1(1), 28–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Brody, H.: 1989, ‘Applied Ethics — Don't Change the Subject’, in: B. Hoffmaster, B. Freedman and G. Fraser (eds.), Clinical Ethics — Theory and Practice. Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press, pp. 183–200.Google Scholar
  13. Brody, B.A.: 1993, ‘Assessing Empirical Research in Bioethics’, Theoretical Medicine 14, 211–219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, S.G. and E.S. Simpson (eds.): 1989, Anti-Theory in Ethics and Moral Conservatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crigger, B.J.: 1995, ‘Bioethnography: Fieldwork in the Lands of Medical Ethics’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly 9(3), 400–417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniels, N.: 1996, Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. van Delden, H.: 1999, ‘De herontdekking van de praktijk’ [‘The Re-Discovery of Practice’]. Kennis en methode: Tijdschrift voor empirische filosofie [Knowledge and Method: Journal for Empirical Philosophy] 2, 167–172.Google Scholar
  18. van Delden, J.J.M. and G.J.M. van Thiel: 1998, ‘Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative-empirical Model in Bioethics’, in: W. van den Burg and T. van Willigenburg (eds.), Reflective Equilibrium. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 251–259.Google Scholar
  19. Demarco, J.P. and R.M. Fox (eds.): 1986, New Directions in Ethics — the Challenge of Applied Ethics. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Dewey, J.: 1960, Theory of the Moral Life. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Dodd, J. and S. Stern-Gillet: 1995, ‘The Is/Ought Gap, the Fact/Value Distinction and the Naturalistic Fallacy’, Dialogue 34, 727–745.Google Scholar
  22. Dreyfus, H.: 2001, On the Internet. Thinking in Action. Routledge: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dworkin, G.: 1989, The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Eckman, M.H.: 2001, ‘Patient-Centered Decision Making: A View of the Past and a Look Toward the Future’, Medical Decision Making 21(3), 241–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Flanagan, O.: 1991, Varieties of Moral Personality — Ethics and Psychological Realism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fletcher, J.: 1966, Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.Google Scholar
  27. Frankfurt, H.: 1971, ‘Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’, Journal of Philosophy, LXVIII(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  28. Friedman, M.A.: 1986, ‘Autonomy and the Split-Level Self’, The Southern Journal of Philosophy XXIV(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  29. Gadamer, H.G.: 1960, Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  30. Gewirth, A.: 1988, ‘Ethical Universalism and Particularism’, The Journal of Philosophy 85, 283–302.Google Scholar
  31. Gillon, R.: 1996, ‘Ethnography, Medical Practice and Moral Reflective Equilibrium’, Journal of Medical Ethics 22(5), 259–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, R.M.: 1990, ‘Method in Bioethics: A Troubled Assessment’, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15, 179–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Have, H.A.M.J.: 1994, ‘The Hyperreality of Clinical Ethics: A Unitary Theory and Hermeneutics’, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Have, H.A.M.J. and A. Lelie: 1998, ‘Medical Ethics Research Between Theory and Practice’, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19, 263–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Heeger, R. and T. van Willigenburg (eds.): 1992, The Turn to Applied Ethics: Practical Consequences for Research, Education, and the Role of Ethicist in Public Debate. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.Google Scholar
  36. Hoffmaster, B.: 1989, ‘Philosophical Ethics and Practical Ethics — Never the Twain Shall Meet’, in: B. Hoffmaster, B. Freedman and G. Fraser (eds.), Clinical Ethics — Theory and Practice. Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press, pp. 201–230.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffmaster, B.: 1991, ‘The Theory and Practice of Applied Ethics’, Dialogue 30, 213–234.Google Scholar
  38. Hoffmaster, B.: 1992, ‘Can Ethnography Save the Life of Medical Ethics?’, Social Sciences and Medicine 35(12), 1421–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hope, T.: 1999, ‘Empirical Medical Ethics’, Journal of Medical Ethics 25, 219–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hume, D.: 1998, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford — New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Introna, L. and H. Nissenbaum: 2000, ‘Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters’, The Information Society 16(3), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jennings, B.: 1993, ‘Ethics and Ethnography in Neonatal Intensive Care’, in: G. Weisz (ed.), Social Science Perspective on Medical Ethics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar
  43. Kleinman, A.: 1999, ‘Moral Experience and Ethical Reflection: Can Ethnography Reconcile Them? A Quandary for “the New Bioethics”’, Daedalus: Bioethics and Beyond 128(4), 69–97.Google Scholar
  44. Kling, R. and S.L. Star: 1998, ‘Human Centered Systems in the Perspective of Organizational and Social Informatics’, Computers and Society 28(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
  45. Kohlberg, L. and R. Kramer: 1969, ‘Continuities and Discontinuities in Childhood and Adult Moral Development’, Human Development 12(2), 93–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Latour, B.: 1989, Science in Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lindemann Nelson, J.: 2000, ‘Moral Teachings from Unexpected Quarters. Lessons for Bioethics from the Social Sciences and Managed Care’, Hastings Center Report 30(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
  48. van der Maas, P.J., G. van der Wal, I. Haverkate, C.L. de Graaff, J.G. Kester and B.D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al.: 1996, ‘Euthanasia, Physician-assisted Suicide, and other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands 1990–1995’, New England Journal of Medicine 335(22), 1699–1705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Macintyre, A.: 1985, After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  50. McGee, G.: 1999, ‘Pragmatic Method and Bioethics’, in: G. McGee (ed.), Pragmatic Bioethics. Nashville & London: Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 18–29.Google Scholar
  51. Molewijk, Bert: 2001, ‘Wetenschappelijk onderbouwde beslissingsondersteuning in de spreekkamer. Transformatie van een besluitvormingsproces tussen chirurg en patiënt’ [‘Evidence-Based Decision Support in the Consulting Room. Transformation of the Decision Making Process between Surgeon and Patient’], in: Berg and Mol (eds.), Ingebouwde normen. Medische technieken doorgelicht [Built in Norms. Medical Technologies Examined]. Utrecht: Van der Wees, pp. 196–194.Google Scholar
  52. Molewijk, A.C.: 2004, ‘Integrated Empirical Ethics: In Search for Clarifying Identities. A Response to the Preceding Paper of Lieke van der Scheer and Guy Widdershoven’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(1), 85–87.Google Scholar
  53. Molewijk, A.C., A.M. Stiggelbout, W. Otten, H.M. Dupuis and J. Kievit: 2003a, ‘Implicit Normativity in Evidence-based Medicine. A Plea for Integrated Empirical Ethics Research’, Health Care Analysis 11(1), 69–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Molewijk, A.C., H.M. Dupuis, J. Kievit, W. Otten, J.H. van Bockel and A.M. Stiggelbout: 2003b, ‘Clarifying Ideals of Patient Autonomy in Medical Decision-making’ [submitted].Google Scholar
  55. Molewijk, A.C., W. Otten, A.M. Stiggelbout, H.M. Dupuis and J. Kievit: 2003c, ‘Patient Autonomy Between Moral Theory and Empirical Data: Methodological Considerations on Empirical Ethics Research’ [revision submitted].Google Scholar
  56. Molewijk, A.C., W. Otten, A.M. Stiggelboat, D.R.M. Timmermans, J. Kievit, J.H. van Bockel: 2003d, ‘Ideals of Patient Autonomy Among an XXX Patients and Their XXX: Paradoxical Results’ [submitted].Google Scholar
  57. Molewijk, A.C., J. Kievit, W. Otten, J.H. van Bockel, C.M.A. Bruijninckx, 2003d, A.M. Stiggelbout: 2004, ‘The Impact of Individualized Evidence-Based Decision Support on Decision-Making, Well-Being and Ideals of Patient Autonomy’ [submitted].Google Scholar
  58. Musschenga, A.W. and W. van der Steen (eds.): 1999, Reasoning in Ethics and Law: The Role of Theory, Principles and Facts. Ashgate: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  59. Musschenga, A.W.: 1999, ‘Empirical Science and Ethical Theory: The Case of Informed Consent’, in: A.W. Musschenga and W. van der Steen (eds.), Reasoning in Ethics and Law: The Role of Theory, Principles and Facts. Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 183–203.Google Scholar
  60. Musschenga, B. and W. van der Steen: 1999, ‘Empirie in de ethiek en empirische ethiek’ [‘Empirical Data in Ethics and Empirical Ethics’], Kennis & methode: Tijdschrift voor empirische filosofie [Knowledge and Method: Journal for Empirical Philosophy] 2, 155–166.Google Scholar
  61. Pearlman, R.A., S.H. Miles and R.M. Arnold: 1993, ‘Contributions of Empirical Research to Medical Ethics’, Theoretical Medicine 14, 197–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Pennings. G.: 1999, ‘Measuring the Welfare of the Child: In Search of the Appropriate Evaluation Principle’, Human Reproduction 14(5), 1146–1150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. van der Ploeg, I.: 2003, ‘The Ethics of Electronic Patient Records. A Review’, Methods of Information in Medicine [In Press].Google Scholar
  64. Pool, R.: 1996, Vragen om te sterven. Euthanasie in een Nederlands ziekenhuis [Asking to Die. Euthanasia in a Dutch Hospital]. Alphen aan de Rijn: WYT Uitgeefgroep.Google Scholar
  65. Potter, R.L.: 1995, ‘The Hermeneutical Process and Clinical Ethics’, Journal of Clinical Ethics 6(1), 88–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
  67. Rorty, R.: 1989, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rosenthal, D.M. and F. Shehadi (eds.): 1988, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  69. van der Scheer, L.: 2002, ‘A Critical Plea for Pragmatism in Bioethics’, in: Keulartz et al. (eds.), Pragmatism in Bioethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  70. van der Scheer, Lieke, Ghislaine van Thiel, Johannes van Delden and Guy Widdershoven: 2004, ‘Theory and Methodology of Empirical Ethics’, in: Soren Holm and Monique Jonas (eds.), Engaging the World: The Use of Empirical Research in Bioethics and The Regulation of Biotechnology. The Netherlands: IOS Press, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  71. Schermer, M.: 2001, The Different Faces of Autonomy. A Study on Patient Autonomy in Ethical Theory and Hospital Practice. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  72. Schneider, C.E.: 1998, The Practice of Autonomy. Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Smith, N.H.: 1997, Strong Hermeneutics. Contingency and Moral Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. van der Steen, W.: 1995, Facts, Values, and Methodology. A New Approach to Ethics. Amsterdam: Editions B.V. Rodopi.Google Scholar
  75. Stiggelbout, A.M., A.C. Molewijk, W. Otten, D.R.M. Timmermans, J.H. van Bockel and J. Kievit: 2004, ‘Ideals of Patient Autonomy in Medical Decision-making: Development of the IPAS, a Scale to Assess Patients' and Physicians' Notions’, Journal of Medical Ethics [accepted, forthcoming].Google Scholar
  76. Sugarman, J. and D.P. Sulmasy (eds.): 2001, Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Sumner, L.W. and J. Boyle (eds.): 1996, Philosophical Perspectives on Bioethics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  78. The, A.M.: 1997, Vanavond om 8 uur... Verpleegkundige dilemma's bij euthanasie en andere beslissingen rond het levenseinde [Tonight at 8 pm. Nursing Dilemmas with Euthanasia and Other Decisions Around the End of Life]. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.Google Scholar
  79. Timmermans, D.R.M., A.C. Molewijk, A.M. Stiggelbout and J. Kievit: 2004, ‘Different Formats for Communicating Surgical Risks to Patients and the Effect on Choice of Treatment’, Patient Education and Counseling [accepted; forthcoming].Google Scholar
  80. Vorstenbosch, J.: 1992, ‘Four Ways of Leaving the Ivory Tower. Perspectives on Research in Applied Ethics’, in: R. Heeger and T. van Willigenburg (eds.), The Turn to Applied Ethics: Practical Consequences for Research, Education, and the Role of Ethicist in Public Debate. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.Google Scholar
  81. de Vries, R. and J. Subedi (eds.): 1998, Bioethics and Society. Constructing the Ethical Enterprise. Upper Saddle River, New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  82. Weaver, G.R. and L.K. Trevino: 1994, ‘Normative and Empirical Business Ethics: Separation, Marriage of Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity?’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(2), 129–143.Google Scholar
  83. Weisz, G. (ed.): 1990, Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  84. Widdershoven, G.A.M.: 1996, Ethiek en empirisch onderzoek naar de autonomie van de patient in de zorg voor mensen met geheugenstoornissen [Ethics and Empirical Research of Patient Autonomy in the Care of People with Memory Disorders]. Paper Presented at the Dutch Workshop “Ethics and Empirical Research” from the Netherlands Research School for Applied Philosophy.Google Scholar
  85. Widdershoven, G.: 1999, ‘Ethiek en empirisch onderzoek: een pleidooi voor interpretatie en contextualiteit’ [‘Ethics and Empirical Research. A Plea for Interpretation and Contextuality’], Kennis en methode: Tijdschrift voor empirische filosofie [Knowledge and Method: Journal for Empirical Philosophy] 2, 145–155.Google Scholar
  86. Wijsbek, H.: 2001, Taking Lives Seriously — Philosophical Issues in the Dutch Euthanasia Debate. Thesis, Free University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  87. Williams, B.: 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana Press/Collins.Google Scholar
  88. van Willigenburg, T. and W. van den Burg (eds.): 1998, Reflective Equilibrium — Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  89. Winner, L.: 1980, ‘Do Artefacts Have Politics?’, Daedalus, 121–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert Molewijk
    • 1
  • Anne M. Stiggelbout
    • 1
  • Wilma Otten
    • 1
  • Heleen M. Dupuis
    • 1
  • Job Kievit
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Medical Decision Making & Medical EthicsLeiden University Medical CentreLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations