Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T19:31:42.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Does Empirical Research Contribute to Medical Ethics?

A Methodological Discussion Using Exemplary Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

STELLA REITER-THEIL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Empirical Ethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 425 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Reiter-Theil, S.Does empirical research make bioethics more relevant? “The embedded researcher” as a methodological approach. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 2004;7(1):17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Førde, R.How can empirical ethics improve medical practice? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2012;21(4):517–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Some authors use the term “EE” with a focus on practical work in clinical ethics, e.g., Widdershoven, G, Abma, T, Molewijk, B.Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics 2009;23(4):236–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Hope, T.Empirical medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 1999;25(3):219–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Sugarman, J, Sulmasy, DP. The many methods of medical ethics. In: Sugarman, J, Sulmasy, DP, eds. Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2001:3–18.Google Scholar

6. Solomon, M.Realizing bioethics’ goals in practice: Ten ways “is” can help “ought.” Hastings Center Report 2005;35(4):40–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Empirical ethics [special issue]. American Journal of Bioethics 2009;9(6–7). Empirical turn [special issue]. Bioethics 2009;23(4).Google Scholar

8. Kon, AA.The role of empirical research in bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 2009;9(6–7):59–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Empirical ethics [special issue]. Bioethics 2009;23(4).Google Scholar

10. Molewijk, B, Stiggelbout, AM, Otten, W, Dupuis, HM, Kievit, J. Empirical data and moral theory: A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 2004;7(1):55–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. As described by De Vries R. How can we help? From “sociology in” to “sociology of” bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2004;32(2):279–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Mertz M. 2009. Zur Möglichkeit einer evidenzbasierten Klinischen Ethik: Philosophische Untersuchungen zur Verwendung von Empirie und Evidenz in der (Medizin-)Ethik [About the possibility of an evidence-based clinical ethics: Philosophical investigations about the use of the “empirical” and “evidence” in (medical) ethics] [master’s thesis]. Munich/Ravensburg: GRIN Verlag.

13. Sugarman, J, Kass, N, Faden, R.Categorizing empirical research in bioethics: Why count the ways? American Journal of Bioethics 2009;9(6–7):66–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. See note 12, Mertz 2009.

15. See note 1.

16. Research on clinical ethics and consultation [thematic section]. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1).

17. Pfaefflin, M, Kobert, K, Reiter-Theil, S.Evaluating clinical ethics consultation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2009;18(4):406–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Hentschel, R, Lindner, K, Krüger, M, Reiter-Theil, S.Restrictions of ongoing intensive care (RIC) in neonates—a prospective study. Pediatrics 2006;118:563–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Forde, R, Hansen, TWR.Involving patients and relatives in a Norwegian clinical ethics committee: What have we learned? Clinical Ethics 2009;4:125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Faden, RR, Beauchamp, TL.A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar

21. Dalla-Vorgia, P, Mason, S, Megone, C, Allmark, P, Bratlid, B, Gill, AB, et al. . Obtaining informed consent for neonatal research. ADC Fetal & Neonatal Edition 2001;84:F70–F73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Hurst, S, Forde, R, Reiter-Theil, S, Perrier, A, Slowther, AM, Pegoraro, R, et al. . Physicians’ access to ethics support services in four European countries. Health Care Analysis 2007;15:321–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Nuckton, TJ, List, ND.Age as a factor in critical care unit admissions. Archive of Internal Medicine 1995;155:1087–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Callahan, D.Setting Limits: Medical Goals in an Aging Society. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1987.Google Scholar

25. Callahan, D. Aging and the allocation of resources. In: Oberender, P, ed. Alter und Gesundheit. Baden-Baden: Nomos; 1996:83–92.Google Scholar

26. The principle follows the tradition of Kant and is often attributed to Hans Albert: Albert, H.Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. After initial skeptical reactions, the National Medical Academy put the topic on its agenda.

28. Winkler, E, Reiter-Theil, S, Lange-Rieß, D, Schmahl-Menges, N, Hiddemann, W.Patient involvement in decisions to limit treatment: The crucial role of agreement between physician and patient. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(13):2225–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. Charles, CA, Gafni, A, Whelan, T, Willan, A, Farrell, S.Shared decision making: What does it mean to physicians? Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;21:932–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Charles, CA, Gafni, A, Whelan, T.Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science & Medicine 1999;49:651–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

31. “Dialectic,” according to Hegel, refers to the necessary process that makes up progress in both thought and the world. The process is one of overcoming the contradiction between thesis and antithesis, by means of synthesis; the synthesis in turn becomes contradicted, and the process continues (after Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996).Google Scholar

32. Regulative idea, after Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, see note 31.

33. Reidun Førde has pointed out this analogy, which deserves more exploration from both epistemological and ethical perspectives.

34. Reiter-Theil, S, Agich, GJ.Research on clinical ethics and consultation: Introduction to the thematic section. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. METAP is an evidence-oriented guideline providing knowledge and procedures for clinical ethics support; the acronym stands for modular, ethical treatment decisions, allocation of resources at the micro level, and process.

36. Reiter-Theil, S, Mertz, M, Schürmann, J, Stingelin Giles, N, Meyer-Zehnder, B.Evidence - competence - discourse: The theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP. Bioethics 2011;25(7):403–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed