» Articles » PMID: 19338524

Empirical Ethics As Dialogical Practice

Overview
Journal Bioethics
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2009 Apr 3
PMID 19338524
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In this article, we present a dialogical approach to empirical ethics, based upon hermeneutic ethics and responsive evaluation. Hermeneutic ethics regards experience as the concrete source of moral wisdom. In order to gain a good understanding of moral issues, concrete detailed experiences and perspectives need to be exchanged. Within hermeneutic ethics dialogue is seen as a vehicle for moral learning and developing normative conclusions. Dialogue stands for a specific view on moral epistemology and methodological criteria for moral inquiry. Responsive evaluation involves a structured way of setting up dialogical learning processes, by eliciting stories of participants, exchanging experiences in (homogeneous and heterogeneous) groups and drawing normative conclusions for practice. By combining these traditions we develop both a theoretical and a practical approach to empirical ethics, in which ethical issues are addressed and shaped together with stakeholders in practice. Stakeholders' experiences are not only used as a source for reflection by the ethicist; stakeholders are involved in the process of reflection and analysis, which takes place in a dialogue between participants in practice, facilitated by the ethicist. This dialogical approach to empirical ethics may give rise to questions such as: What contribution does the ethicist make? What role does ethical theory play? What is the relationship between empirical research and ethical theory in the dialogical process? In this article, these questions will be addressed by reflecting upon a project in empirical ethics that was set up in a dialogical way. The aim of this project was to develop and implement normative guidelines with and within practice, in order to improve the practice concerning coercion and compulsion in psychiatry.

Citing Articles

Healthcare practitioners as accomplices: a qualitative study of gender affirmation in a context of ambiguous regulation in Indonesia.

Hegarty B, Wolter A, Handayani A, Marian K, Newland J, Oetomo D BMC Med Ethics. 2025; 26(1):3.

PMID: 39806368 PMC: 11726924. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01134-9.


Living ethics: a stance and its implications in health ethics.

Racine E, Ji S, Badro V, Bogossian A, Bourque C, Bouthillier M Med Health Care Philos. 2024; 27(2):137-154.

PMID: 38478251 PMC: 11076378. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-024-10197-9.


Ethics of access to newly approved expensive medical treatments: multi-stakeholder dialogues in a publicly funded healthcare system.

Bomhof C, Smids J, Sybesma S, Schermer M, Bunnik E Front Pharmacol. 2024; 14:1265029.

PMID: 38352693 PMC: 10863042. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1265029.


The Vagueness of Integrating the Empirical and the Normative: Researchers' Views on Doing Empirical Bioethics.

Wangmo T, Provoost V, Mihailov E J Bioeth Inq. 2023; 21(2):295-308.

PMID: 37938498 PMC: 11288993. DOI: 10.1007/s11673-023-10286-z.


The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations.

Nakou P, Bennett R Theor Med Bioeth. 2023; 44(6):589-606.

PMID: 37930620 PMC: 10643326. DOI: 10.1007/s11017-023-09639-x.