Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics: Table 1
Abstract
Empirical studies on people's moral attitudes regarding ethically challenging topics contribute greatly to research in medical ethics. However, it is not always clear in which ways this research adds to medical ethics as a normative discipline. In this article, we aim to provide a systematic account of the different ways in which attitudinal research can be used for normative reflection. In the first part, we discuss whether ethical judgements can be based on empirical work alone and we develop a sceptical position regarding this point, taking into account theoretical, methodological and pragmatic considerations. As empirical data should not be taken as a direct source for normative justification, we then delineate different ways in which attitudes research can be combined with theoretical accounts of normative justification in the second part of the article. Firstly, the combination of attitudes research with normative-ethical theories is analysed with respect to three different aspects: (a) The extent of empirical data which is needed, (b) the question of which kind of data is required and (c) the ways in which the empirical data are processed within the framework of an ethical theory. Secondly, two further functions of attitudes research are displayed which lie outside the traditional focus of ethical theories: the exploratory function of detecting and characterising new ethical problems, and the field of 'moral pragmatics'. The article concludes with a methodological outl…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Data on public perspectives are not definitive.
“There are, however, several reasons why public opinion alone should not dictate policy: (a) Data on public perspectives are not definitive (21, 92, 120);”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [120]
Normative judgments must be grounded in, or at least reconciled with, foundational principles.
“(c) normative judgments must be grounded in, or at least reconciled with, foundational principles (21, 116, 120).”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [120]
Attitudes and opinions may be expressions of intense moral reflection or the product of misunderstanding, bias, selfishness, self-deception, and other problematic factors.
“(b) attitudes and opinions may be expressions of intense moral reflection or the product of misunderstanding, bias, selfishness, self-deception, and other problematic factors (116, 120);”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [120]
Cites
Deigh, J. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750519 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
“There are, however, several reasons why public opinion alone should not dictate policy: (a) Data on public perspectives are not definitive (21, 92, 120); (b) attitudes and opinions may be expressions of intense moral reflection or the product of misunderstanding, bias, selfishness, self-deception, and other problemati…”
Background
- Authors
- Salloch, S., Vollmann, J., & Schildmann, J.
- Affiliations
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Salloch, Sabine
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2013-04-30
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 597-602
- ISSN
- 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4257
- OpenAlex
- W2159156009
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- medical ethics, normative justification, moral judgment, normative ethical theories, public opinion survey
- MeSH terms
- Ethics, Medical, Humans, Morals, Ethical Theory, Empirical Research, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review