Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.654066
Title: The medical covenant : a corrective vision?
Author: Lowe, G. Y.
Awarding Body: University of Edinburgh
Current Institution: University of Edinburgh
Date of Award: 2001
Availability of Full Text:
Full text unavailable from EThOS.
Please contact the current institution’s library for further details.
Abstract:
Contemporary bioethics is a field born of the necessity of its times. Its development and growth are largely propelled by the advances of medical technology, shaped by the wheel of crushing economics. Medical advances, by creating difficult moral dilemmas, probe the consciences of the profession and of society in general of the deeper ethical questions about humans, their humanity, their life and death. Many theories or approaches have sprouted to meet the challenges or the tasks of solving these puzzling moral dilemmas. Of the maze of methods, the Four-Principle Approach espoused by Beauchamp and Childress seems to command the popularity of the field, of course, not without significant criticisms. The Medical Covenant is another method upheld by William F. May, believed by the author and affirmed by others to be the “corrective lens” of contemporary bioethics. This dissertation seeks to contribute to the clarification project of the variegate bioethical methods, theories and approaches by examining this claim: Is the Medical Covenant a “corrective vision” to contemporary bioethics as reflected in dominant Four-Principle Approach? If so, in what ways? The dissertation attempts to answer these questions by juxtaposing the two approaches side by side in a method that includes 1) a threefold comparison scheme, 2) an “unpacking” process, and 3) a test of relevancy. The threefold comparison scheme compares the positions of the two camps on topics 1) of personal nature (euthanasia and assisted suicide), 2) of broader social and professional implications (health care reform and physician-patient relationship), and 3) of method. The “unpacking” process attempts to unveil the underlying logic and philosophies of their positions. A test of relevancy asks the question whether the “corrections,” if any, offered by the Medical Covenant are relevant to the call and tasks of the bioethical enterprise.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.654066  DOI: Not available
Share: