title: Can phronesis save the life of medical ethics?
abstract: There has been a growing interest in casuistry since the ground breaking work of Jonsen and Toulmin. Casuistry, in their view, offers the possibility of securing the moral agreement that policy makers desire but which has proved elusive to theory driven approaches to ethics. However, their account of casuistry is dependent upon the exercise of phronesis. As recent discussions of phronesis make clear, this requires attention not only to the particulars of the case, but also to the substantive goods at stake in the case. Without agreement on these goods attention to cases is unlikely to secure the productive consensus that Jonson and Toulmin seek.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors.forename: E B
authors.initials: EB
authors.lastname: Beresford
mesh_terms: D032764:Casuistry; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D032921:Consensus; D003657:Decision Making; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D028663:Ethical Theory; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D019359:Knowledge; D008128:Logic; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D028722:Virtues