WHAT CAN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES CONTRIBUTE TO THE STUDY OF ETHICS? Theoretical, Empirical and Substantive Considerations1

  • ERICA HAIMES
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 28)

Abstract

Since the late twentieth century the Euro-American mass media have given a great deal of coverage to debates over topics such as abortion, euthanasia, fertility treatment, surrogacy, organ donation, genetic screening and access to medical treatment. Topics outside the medical field such as genetically modified crops, investment policies, child labour and environmental issues have also been thoroughly aired. Since the debates have been primarily concerned with the ethics of such practices it could be argued that their prominence represents an increase in awareness of ethical issues. However, the voice of sociology and the other social sciences is rarely heard in these debates. Is this because (i) the social sciences have little to say on these issues, or is it because (ii) though it has much to say, the voice of the social sciences has had little impact, and is this, in turn, because (iii) the social sciences are not usually associated with the study of ethics and ethical issues?

Keywords

Ethical Issue Medical Ethic Ethical Dilemma Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Multiple Birth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauman, Z. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, B. “Posthumous reproduction and the meanings of autonomy.” Melbourne University Law Review 1999, 23, 286–307.Google Scholar
  3. Burbidge, R. and Haimes, E. “Infertility treatment and the welfare of the child”. Paper presented to the British Sociological Association Medical Sociology Group Annual Conference, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. Chadwick, R. and Levitt, M. “Comment”. In Cultural and social objections to biotechnology. Biocult Project Team Report. University of Central Lancashire, 1996, 160–173.Google Scholar
  5. Daniels, K. and Haimes, E. Donor Insemination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dingwall, R. Ethics and ethnography. Sociological Review 1980, 28, 871–891.Google Scholar
  7. DeVries, R. and Subedi, J. (eds.). Bioethics and Society. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, J. “Explicit connections: ethnographic enquiry in north-west England”. In Technologies of Procreation. J. Edwards et al. (eds.). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993, 42–66.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, J. “Donor insemination and ‘public opinion’ ”. In Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. K. Daniels and E. Haimes (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliot, A. “Introduction”. In Contemporary Social Theory. A. Elliot (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, 1–31.Google Scholar
  11. Franklin, S. “Making representations”. In Technologies of Procreation. J. Edwards et al. (eds.). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, S. Embodied Progress. London: Routledge, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freidson, E. Profession of Medicine. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co, 1975.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. Gillet, G.R. “Medical ethics in a multicultural context.” Journal of Medical Ethics 1995, 238, 531–537.Google Scholar
  16. Ginsberg, M. Reason and Unreason in Society. London: Longman's Green und Co., 1942.Google Scholar
  17. Gofton, L. and Haimes, E. “Necessary Evils?” Sociological Research Online 1999, 1. http://www.socresonline.org.uk).http://www.socresonline.org.uk (last visit: June 2005).
  18. Haimes, E. Family Connections. Doctoral thesis, University of Newcastle, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. Haimes, E. “Gamete donation and the social management of genetic origins”. In Changing Human Reproduction. M. Stacey (ed.). London: Sage, 1992, 119–147.Google Scholar
  20. Haimes, E. and Williams, R. “Social constructionism and the new technologies of reproduction”. In The Politics of Constructionism. I. Velody and R. Williams (eds.). London: Sage, 1998, 132–146.Google Scholar
  21. Helmes-Hayes, R.C. “From universal history to historical sociology: a critical comment.” British Journal of Sociology 1992, 43, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffmaster, B. “Can ethnography save the life of medical ethics?” Social Science and Medicine 1992, 35, 1421–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holm, S. Ethical Problems in Clinical Practice. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. Lash, S. “Introduction to the ethics and difference debate.” Theory, Culture and Society1996, 13, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. du Jardin, B. “Health and human rights.” Social Science and Medicine 1994, 39, 1261–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackenzie, C. “Social constructionist political theory”. In The Politics of Constructionism. I. Velody and R. Williams (eds.). London: Sage, 1998, 200–220.Google Scholar
  27. Mulkay, M. “Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate.” Social Studies of Science 1993, 23, 721–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson, J.L. “Moral teachings from unexpected quarters. Lessons for bioethics from the social sciences and managed care”. Hastings Center Report 2000, January-February, 12–17.Google Scholar
  29. Osborne, T. “Sociology, liberalism and the historicity of conduct”. Economy and Society 1994a, 23, 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osborne, T. “Power and persons.” Sociology of Health and Illness 1994b, 16, 514–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Osborne, T. “Constructionism, authority and the ethical life”. In The Politics of Constructionism. I. Velody and R. Williams (eds.). London: Sage, 1998, 221–234.Google Scholar
  32. Pfeffer, N. “From private patients to privatisation”. In Changing Human Reproduction. M. Stacey (ed.). London: Sage, 1992, 48–74.Google Scholar
  33. Pippin, R.B. “Medical practice and social authority.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1996, 21, 417–437.Google Scholar
  34. Price, F. “Having triplets, quads or quins: who bears the responsibility?” In Changing Human Reproduction. M. Stacey (ed.). London: Sage, 1992, 92–118.Google Scholar
  35. Rabinow, P. (ed.) Michel Foucault: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. London: Allen Lane, 1997.Google Scholar
  36. Schenck, D. “The texture of embodiment: foundation for medical ethics.” Human Studies 1986, 9, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharpe, V. “Justice and care: the implications of the Kohlberg-Gilligan debate for medical ethics.” Theoretical Medicine 1992, 13, 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silverman, D. Qualitative Methodology and Sociology. Gower: Aldershot, 1985.Google Scholar
  39. Silverman, D. “Review: social science perspectives on medical ethics.” British Journal of Sociology 1992, 43, 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spallone, Pat et al. “Putting sociology on the bioethics map.” In For Sociology. J. Eldridge et al. (eds.). Durham: Sociology Press, 2000, 191–206.Google Scholar
  41. Stacey, M. Regulating British Medicine. London: Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
  42. Strathern, M. “Enabling identity? Biology, choice and the new reproductive technologies”. In Questions of Cultural Identity. S. Hall and P. du Gay (eds.) London: Sage, 1996, 37–52.Google Scholar
  43. Toulmin, S. “How medicine saved the life of ethics.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1982, 25, 736–750.Google Scholar
  44. Weber, Max. “Science as a vocation.” In From Max Weber. H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.Google Scholar
  45. Weber, Max. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Free Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  46. Velody, I. and Williams, R. “Introduction.” In The Politics of Constructionism. I. Velody and R. Williams (eds.). London: Sage, 1998, 1–12.Google Scholar
  47. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Free Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  48. Zussman, R. “The contributions of Sociology to medical ethics”. Hastings Center Report 2000, January-February, 7–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • ERICA HAIMES
    • 1
  1. 1.NewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations