Abstract
Whilst there has been considerable debate about the fit between moral theory and moral reasoning in everyday life, the way in which moral problems are defined has rarely been questioned. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with 15 general practitioners (GPs) in South Australia to argue that the way in which the bioethics literature defines an ethical dilemma captures only some of the range of lay views about the nature of ethical problems. The bioethics literature has defined ethical dilemmas in terms of conflict and choice between values, beliefs and options for action. While some of the views of some of the GPs in this study about the nature of their ethical dilemmas certainly accorded with this definition, other explanations of the ethical nature of their problems revolved around the publicity associated with the issues they were discussing, concern about their relationships with patients, and anxiety about threats to their integrity and reputation. The variety of views about what makes a problem a moral problem indicates that the moral domain is perhaps wider and richer than mainstream bioethics would generally allow.
Key Words: Empirical ethics • general practice • qualitative research
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (100.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Beauchamp Tom L. Principlism and its alleged competitors. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1995 Sep;5(3):181–198. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green R. M., Gert B., Clouser K. D. The method of public morality versus the method of principlism. J Med Philos. 1993 Oct;18(5):477–489. doi: 10.1093/jmp/18.5.477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hoffmaster B. Can ethnography save the life of medical ethics? Soc Sci Med. 1992 Dec;35(12):1421–1431. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90045-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]