2009
DOI: 10.1080/15265160902874320
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Role of Empirical Research in Bioethics

Abstract: There has long been tension between bioethicists whose work focuses on classical philosophical inquiry and those who perform empirical studies on bioethical issues. While many have argued that empirical research merely illuminates current practices and cannot inform normative ethics, others assert that research-based work has significant implications for refining our ethical norms. In this essay, I present a novel construct for classifying empirical research in bioethics into four hierarchical categories: Lay … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
169
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 126 publications
(174 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
169
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Whilst it might be argued that some tendency toward conservatism could be protective, and is a price we might be willing to pay to ensure that ill thought out changes are not rushed through (Ives 2014), the analysis presented by Spranzi and Brunet highlight the way that the design of a consultation, and the people involved, can significantly impact upon the kinds of conclusions reached. This analysis challenges the relatively simplistic accounts of 'empirical data gathering' that we find in accounts like that offered by Kon (2009), which (wrongly) imply that gathering and interpreting data on stakeholder and public opinion is a straightforward activity (see also Dunn and Ives 2009). The paper broadens our perspective by pointing to what precedes and shapes the empirical phase, making it more or less difficult to gather useful and credible evidence of a particular type.…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 45%
“…Whilst it might be argued that some tendency toward conservatism could be protective, and is a price we might be willing to pay to ensure that ill thought out changes are not rushed through (Ives 2014), the analysis presented by Spranzi and Brunet highlight the way that the design of a consultation, and the people involved, can significantly impact upon the kinds of conclusions reached. This analysis challenges the relatively simplistic accounts of 'empirical data gathering' that we find in accounts like that offered by Kon (2009), which (wrongly) imply that gathering and interpreting data on stakeholder and public opinion is a straightforward activity (see also Dunn and Ives 2009). The paper broadens our perspective by pointing to what precedes and shapes the empirical phase, making it more or less difficult to gather useful and credible evidence of a particular type.…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 45%
“…There would seem to 7 It may be the case that no one currently harbors such ambitions, or at least ambitions put so baldly, but it would be a mistake to take the view to be a straw man. A bioethics of brain states would seem to rest comfortably at the intersection of the push for greater empirical work in bioethics on one hand (see [35]) and the largely reductionist views of the mind (as evidenced by Patricia Churchland, for instance [36]) informing bioethics, at least as filtered through neuroethics, on the other. 8 Todd Chambers, in his The Fiction of Bioethics, discusses how the structure of cases in bioethics prefigures their evaluation [37].…”
Section: Moderate Clinical Neuroskepticismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among those, it is included the perspective discussed in this article 17 . Kon assesses that the empirical research can contribute to bioethics in four levels, especially emphasizing the attention to health or clinical bioethics 18 .…”
Section: The Role Of Qualitative Research In Bioethicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The third one includes investigations that intend to find ways of solving the problems identified in previous level. And the fourth one is grounded on work of three previous levels, using obtained knowledge to form the grounds of bioethical arguments to change ethical standards 18 .…”
Section: The Role Of Qualitative Research In Bioethicsmentioning
confidence: 99%