Bioetika i kazuistika - Kriza kazuistike i tzv. «infraetike» unutar bioetike i sekularne moralnosti

Paul Ramsey, an American Protestant Christian Ethicist, before down of the birth of bioethics 1970, asserted that «Medical ethics today must, indeed, be 'casuistry'; it must deal as competently and exaustively as possible with the concrete features of actual moral decisions of life and death and medical care». Five years later, namely 1975, Albert Jonsen, to all well known American Bioethicist, explanes importance and necessity of «infraethics», having in mind casuistry, whose idea is literally ridiculed by the same Paul Ramsey. But it wasn't discouraging for Jonsens, because he himself, together with Sephen Toulmin, an American epistemologist, having both got into the harness, were introducing casuistry as the third alternative, along with ethics of care and ethics of virtues, to other classical ethical theories present in bioethics. According to them «a good casuistry (...) applies general principles to particular cases with discernment». Fundamentally meant as an inductive and narrative ethics, inspired by the Late Middle Ages and the Modern World casuistry of the Roman Catholic moral theology, casuistry couldn't escape from basic questions about its viability in bioethics, as it was the case with other ethical theories. First, how casuistry deals with bad historical legacy and defeat in its own court? Second, is casuistry an adequate method for bioethics? Third, can casuistry respond to challenges of secular morality – pluralism and relativism – that interweaves bioethical discourse? Fourth, how does casuistry deal with its opponents and critics? These are only some of many questions in this article whiche are looking for their answer.