2022
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2022-108135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Where the ethical action also is: a response to Hardman and Hutchinson

Abstract: In Where the ethical action is, Hardman and Hutchinson make some interesting and compelling points about the way in which ‘the ethical’—various values and various kinds of values—are embedded in everyday life, including the everyday life one finds in clinical interactions, understood as scientific or scientifically informed activities. However, even when one considers ‘the ethical’ from within the horizon of understanding adopted in their essay, they neglect several important features of healthcare and medical… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our article, Where the ethical action is, we argue that that medical and ethical modes of thought are not different in kind but merely different aspects of a clinical situation 1. In response, Emmerich argues that in so doing, we neglect several important features of healthcare and medical education 2. Although we applaud the spirit of Emmerich’s response, we argue that his critique is an attempt at a general defence of the value of bioethical expertise in clinical practice, rather than a specific critique of our account.…”
mentioning
confidence: 87%
“…In our article, Where the ethical action is, we argue that that medical and ethical modes of thought are not different in kind but merely different aspects of a clinical situation 1. In response, Emmerich argues that in so doing, we neglect several important features of healthcare and medical education 2. Although we applaud the spirit of Emmerich’s response, we argue that his critique is an attempt at a general defence of the value of bioethical expertise in clinical practice, rather than a specific critique of our account.…”
mentioning
confidence: 87%
“…It is this secondary argument that seems to have raised the hackles of some in the professional bioethics community. Following on from the reply we received from Emmerich, 2 and our response to that, 3 we have received a reply from Wagner, 4 seeking to defend normative moral theorising. Wagner’s challenge is based on an argument, drawing on an article by Roussos, 5 to the effect that we should reconceive normative moral theories as (multiple) models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%