Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics

This essay focuses on how casuistry can become a useful technique of practical reasoning for the clinical ethicist or ethics consultant. Casuistry is defined, its relationship to rhetorical reasoning and its interpretation of cases, by employing three terms that, while they are not employed by the c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Theoretical Medicine 1991-12, Vol.12 (4), p.295-307
1. Verfasser: Jonsen, A R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 307
container_issue 4
container_start_page 295
container_title Theoretical Medicine
container_volume 12
creator Jonsen, A R
description This essay focuses on how casuistry can become a useful technique of practical reasoning for the clinical ethicist or ethics consultant. Casuistry is defined, its relationship to rhetorical reasoning and its interpretation of cases, by employing three terms that, while they are not employed by the classical rhetoricians and casuists, conform, in a general way, to the features of their work. Those terms are (1) morphology, (2) taxonomy, (3) kinetics. The morphology of a case reveals the invariant structure of the particular case whatever its contingent features, and also the invariant forms of argument relevant to any case of the same sort: these invariant features can be called topics. Taxonomy situates the instant case in a series of similar cases, allowing the similarities and differences between an instant case and a paradigm case to dictate the moral judgment about the instant case. This judgment is based, not merely on application of an ethical theory or principle, but upon the way in which circumstances and maxims appear in the morphology of the case itself and in comparison with other cases. Kinetics is an understanding of the way in which one case imparts a kind of moral movement to other cases, that is, different and sometimes unprecedented circumstances may move certain marginal or exceptional cases to the level of paradigm cases. In conclusion, casuistry is the exercise of prudential or practical reasoning in recognition of the relationship between maxims, circumstances and topics, as well as the relationship of paradigms to analogous cases.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/BF00489890
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72686832</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72686832</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-4fad14306ddd9e115cbbe311471dac8dd4d8085a3b911e82820720aa74000c893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkLFLxDAYxYMoZz1d3IVODkr1-5K2SUaveCocuOhc0iTVSNqeTTv0v7fSg5sePH7vDT9CrhEeEIA_brYAqZBCwgmJMOMsQQpwSiLAnCdSAj0nFyH8AKAAYCuymhMZQETuCxVGF4Z-ilWIGzt8d6bz3dcUuzbW3rVOKx_PtdPhkpzVygd7dcg1-dw-fxSvye795a142iWaCjokaa0MpgxyY4y0iJmuKssQU45GaWFMagSITLFKIloxb4BTUIqnAKCFZGtyu_zu--53tGEoGxe09V61thtDyWkucsHoDN4toO67EHpbl_veNaqfSoTy30x5NDPDN4fXsWqsOaKLCvYHbwhbyw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72686832</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Jonsen, A R</creator><creatorcontrib>Jonsen, A R</creatorcontrib><description>This essay focuses on how casuistry can become a useful technique of practical reasoning for the clinical ethicist or ethics consultant. Casuistry is defined, its relationship to rhetorical reasoning and its interpretation of cases, by employing three terms that, while they are not employed by the classical rhetoricians and casuists, conform, in a general way, to the features of their work. Those terms are (1) morphology, (2) taxonomy, (3) kinetics. The morphology of a case reveals the invariant structure of the particular case whatever its contingent features, and also the invariant forms of argument relevant to any case of the same sort: these invariant features can be called topics. Taxonomy situates the instant case in a series of similar cases, allowing the similarities and differences between an instant case and a paradigm case to dictate the moral judgment about the instant case. This judgment is based, not merely on application of an ethical theory or principle, but upon the way in which circumstances and maxims appear in the morphology of the case itself and in comparison with other cases. Kinetics is an understanding of the way in which one case imparts a kind of moral movement to other cases, that is, different and sometimes unprecedented circumstances may move certain marginal or exceptional cases to the level of paradigm cases. In conclusion, casuistry is the exercise of prudential or practical reasoning in recognition of the relationship between maxims, circumstances and topics, as well as the relationship of paradigms to analogous cases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-9902</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1200</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF00489890</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1801300</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands</publisher><subject>Bioethical Issues ; Bioethics ; Biology ; Casuistry ; Classification ; Ethical Analysis ; Ethical Theory ; Ethicists ; Ethics, Clinical ; Ethics, Medical ; Euthanasia, Active ; Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary ; Kinetics ; Morals ; Philosophy</subject><ispartof>Theoretical Medicine, 1991-12, Vol.12 (4), p.295-307</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-4fad14306ddd9e115cbbe311471dac8dd4d8085a3b911e82820720aa74000c893</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-4fad14306ddd9e115cbbe311471dac8dd4d8085a3b911e82820720aa74000c893</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1801300$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jonsen, A R</creatorcontrib><title>Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics</title><title>Theoretical Medicine</title><addtitle>Theor Med</addtitle><description>This essay focuses on how casuistry can become a useful technique of practical reasoning for the clinical ethicist or ethics consultant. Casuistry is defined, its relationship to rhetorical reasoning and its interpretation of cases, by employing three terms that, while they are not employed by the classical rhetoricians and casuists, conform, in a general way, to the features of their work. Those terms are (1) morphology, (2) taxonomy, (3) kinetics. The morphology of a case reveals the invariant structure of the particular case whatever its contingent features, and also the invariant forms of argument relevant to any case of the same sort: these invariant features can be called topics. Taxonomy situates the instant case in a series of similar cases, allowing the similarities and differences between an instant case and a paradigm case to dictate the moral judgment about the instant case. This judgment is based, not merely on application of an ethical theory or principle, but upon the way in which circumstances and maxims appear in the morphology of the case itself and in comparison with other cases. Kinetics is an understanding of the way in which one case imparts a kind of moral movement to other cases, that is, different and sometimes unprecedented circumstances may move certain marginal or exceptional cases to the level of paradigm cases. In conclusion, casuistry is the exercise of prudential or practical reasoning in recognition of the relationship between maxims, circumstances and topics, as well as the relationship of paradigms to analogous cases.</description><subject>Bioethical Issues</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Casuistry</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Ethical Analysis</subject><subject>Ethical Theory</subject><subject>Ethicists</subject><subject>Ethics, Clinical</subject><subject>Ethics, Medical</subject><subject>Euthanasia, Active</subject><subject>Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary</subject><subject>Kinetics</subject><subject>Morals</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><issn>0167-9902</issn><issn>1573-1200</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1991</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkLFLxDAYxYMoZz1d3IVODkr1-5K2SUaveCocuOhc0iTVSNqeTTv0v7fSg5sePH7vDT9CrhEeEIA_brYAqZBCwgmJMOMsQQpwSiLAnCdSAj0nFyH8AKAAYCuymhMZQETuCxVGF4Z-ilWIGzt8d6bz3dcUuzbW3rVOKx_PtdPhkpzVygd7dcg1-dw-fxSvye795a142iWaCjokaa0MpgxyY4y0iJmuKssQU45GaWFMagSITLFKIloxb4BTUIqnAKCFZGtyu_zu--53tGEoGxe09V61thtDyWkucsHoDN4toO67EHpbl_veNaqfSoTy30x5NDPDN4fXsWqsOaKLCvYHbwhbyw</recordid><startdate>199112</startdate><enddate>199112</enddate><creator>Jonsen, A R</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199112</creationdate><title>Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics</title><author>Jonsen, A R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-4fad14306ddd9e115cbbe311471dac8dd4d8085a3b911e82820720aa74000c893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1991</creationdate><topic>Bioethical Issues</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Casuistry</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Ethical Analysis</topic><topic>Ethical Theory</topic><topic>Ethicists</topic><topic>Ethics, Clinical</topic><topic>Ethics, Medical</topic><topic>Euthanasia, Active</topic><topic>Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary</topic><topic>Kinetics</topic><topic>Morals</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jonsen, A R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Theoretical Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jonsen, A R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics</atitle><jtitle>Theoretical Medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Theor Med</addtitle><date>1991-12</date><risdate>1991</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>295</spage><epage>307</epage><pages>295-307</pages><issn>0167-9902</issn><eissn>1573-1200</eissn><abstract>This essay focuses on how casuistry can become a useful technique of practical reasoning for the clinical ethicist or ethics consultant. Casuistry is defined, its relationship to rhetorical reasoning and its interpretation of cases, by employing three terms that, while they are not employed by the classical rhetoricians and casuists, conform, in a general way, to the features of their work. Those terms are (1) morphology, (2) taxonomy, (3) kinetics. The morphology of a case reveals the invariant structure of the particular case whatever its contingent features, and also the invariant forms of argument relevant to any case of the same sort: these invariant features can be called topics. Taxonomy situates the instant case in a series of similar cases, allowing the similarities and differences between an instant case and a paradigm case to dictate the moral judgment about the instant case. This judgment is based, not merely on application of an ethical theory or principle, but upon the way in which circumstances and maxims appear in the morphology of the case itself and in comparison with other cases. Kinetics is an understanding of the way in which one case imparts a kind of moral movement to other cases, that is, different and sometimes unprecedented circumstances may move certain marginal or exceptional cases to the level of paradigm cases. In conclusion, casuistry is the exercise of prudential or practical reasoning in recognition of the relationship between maxims, circumstances and topics, as well as the relationship of paradigms to analogous cases.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pmid>1801300</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF00489890</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-9902
ispartof Theoretical Medicine, 1991-12, Vol.12 (4), p.295-307
issn 0167-9902
1573-1200
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72686832
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Bioethical Issues
Bioethics
Biology
Casuistry
Classification
Ethical Analysis
Ethical Theory
Ethicists
Ethics, Clinical
Ethics, Medical
Euthanasia, Active
Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary
Kinetics
Morals
Philosophy
title Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T17%3A02%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Casuistry%20as%20methodology%20in%20clinical%20ethics&rft.jtitle=Theoretical%20Medicine&rft.au=Jonsen,%20A%20R&rft.date=1991-12&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=295&rft.epage=307&rft.pages=295-307&rft.issn=0167-9902&rft.eissn=1573-1200&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF00489890&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72686832%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72686832&rft_id=info:pmid/1801300&rfr_iscdi=true