Skip to main content
Log in

The four-principle formulation of common morality is at the core of bioethics mediation method

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

Abstract

Bioethics mediation is increasingly used as a method in clinical ethics cases. My goal in this paper is to examine the implicit theoretical assumptions of the bioethics mediation method developed by Dubler and Liebman. According to them, the distinguishing feature of bioethics mediation is that the method is useful in most cases of clinical ethics in which conflict is the main issue, which implies that there is either no real ethical issue or if there were, they are not the key to finding a resolution. I question the tacit assumption of non-normativity of the mediation method in bioethics by examining the various senses in which bioethics mediation might be non-normative or neutral. The major normative assumption of the mediation method is the existence of common morality. In addition, the four-principle formulation of the theory articulated by Beauchamp and Childress implicitly provides the normative content for the method. Full acknowledgement of the theoretical and normative assumptions of bioethics mediation helps clinical ethicists better understand the nature of their job. In addition, the need for a robust philosophical background even in what appears to be a purely practical method of mediation cannot be overemphasized. Acknowledgement of the normative nature of bioethics mediation method necessitates a more critical attitude of the bioethics mediators towards the norms they usually take for granted uncritically as valid.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubler, N.N. 2011. A “principled resolution”: The fulcrum for bioethics mediation. Law and Contemporary Problems 74: 177–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubler, N.N., and C.B. Liebman. 2011. Bioethics mediation: A guide to shaping shared solutions. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H.T. 1991. Bioethics and secular humanism: The search for a common morality. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H.T. 1996. The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A.R., and S.E. Toulmin. 1998. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, L.M. 2012. Patient advocacy in clinical ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 12(8): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1987. The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7(1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Kayla Kostelecky and unknown reviewers for their review of the paper and their useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmadi Nasab Emran, S. The four-principle formulation of common morality is at the core of bioethics mediation method. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 371–377 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9612-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9612-7

Keywords

Navigation