Bioethics, Raw and Cooked: Extraordinary Conflict and Everyday Practice
Abstract
This article explains the emergence, growth, and institutional anchoring of bioethics in both policy and clinical arenas. Under the heading of principlism, bioethics developed a public language for resolving disputes that allowed it to transform disputes involving sacred matters into profane work routines. At the same time, having principlism as a common language for solving practical disputes allowed “ethics work” in health care to be separated from moral theorizing as a practical activity. Two issues—the right to die and the protection of research subjects—serve to illustrate the process through which bioethics established a large institutional footprint in health care.
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?
Principlism in medical ethics provides a common language to identify and conceptualise ethical challenges and provides guidance for setting health policy and clinical decision-making.
“Whereas principlism in medical ethics provides a common language to identify and conceptualise ethical challenges, 13,14 and provides guidance for setting health policy and clinical decision-making”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
High-level principles rarely feature explicitly in clinical decision-making, which is instead bounded by institutional policies that include principled concerns.
“High-level principles rarely feature explicitly in clinical decision-making which is instead bounded by institutional policies that include principled concerns.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Medical institutions subject to regulation help ensure professional standards are upheld.
“Medical institutions subject to regulation help ensure these standards are upheld.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- Bosk, C. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bosk, Charles L.
- Venue
- Journal of Health and Social Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1_suppl
- Pages
- S133-S146
- ISSN
- 0022-1465 (ISSN-L)
- 2150-6000
- OpenAlex
- W2160669495
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health and Social Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Keywords
- bioethics, principlism, institutionalization of bioethics, health care ethics, clinical ethics, right to die, research ethics, research participant protection, moral disagreement, health policy
- MeSH terms
- Bioethics, Culture, Health Policy, Humans, Social Problems, Sociology, Medical, Ethical Theory, Patient Rights, Ethics, Research, Dissent and Disputes
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
