Not principlism nor casuistry, not narrative ethics nor clinical pragmatism: A case for proceduralism

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

The peer reviewers of Part Two critically appraise and reflect on the clinical ethicist’s actions in “The Zadeh Scenario.” In what follows, I first outline four prominent methods for “doing” clinical ethics. For each I consider if, and how, the method may have been utilized in the peer reviews of Part Two. Where peer reviewers employ different methods within their analyses, or where they are unclear in their methods, I draw attention to it. Finally, I propose a method that I believe is a common thread in all of the peer reviewers’ assessments; I call this method “proceduralism,” a method that echoes narrative and pragmatism approaches while using procedural standards to orient the method.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationPeer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation
Subtitle of host publicationThe Zadeh Project
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages113-125
Number of pages13
ISBN (Electronic)9783319909554
ISBN (Print)9783319909530
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Not principlism nor casuistry, not narrative ethics nor clinical pragmatism: A case for proceduralism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this