Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:45:48.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bioethics and Social Studies of Medicine: Overlapping Concerns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

LEIGH TURNER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Polemicists and disciplinary puritans commonly make a sharp distinction between the normative, “prescriptive,” philosophical work of bioethicists and the empirical, “descriptive” work of anthropologists and sociologists studying medicine, healthcare, and illness. Though few contemporary medical anthropologists and sociologists of health and illness subscribe to positivism, the legacy of positivist thought persists in some areas of the social sciences. It is still quite common for social scientists to insist that their work does not contain explicit normative analysis, offers no practical recommendations for social reform or policy making, and simply interprets social worlds.

Type
Special Section: Open Forum
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 36 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Scheper-Hughes N. The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropology. Current Anthropology 1995;36(3):409–40.

2. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 2005;19:49–71.

3. Flyvberg B. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001; Nelson J. Moral teachings from unexpected quarters: Lessons for bioethics from the social sciences and managed care. Hastings Center Report 2000;30(1):12–7; Murray T. Moral reasoning in social context. Journal of Social Issues 1993;49:185–200; De Vries R, Turner L, Orfali K, Bosk, C. Social science and bioethics: Morality from the ground up. Clinical Ethics 2007;(2):33–5.

4. Ebbesen M, Pedersen B. Using empirical research to formulate normative ethical principles in biomedicine. Medicine, Health Care & Philosophy 2007;10:33–48; Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K. What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Medicine, Health Care & Philosophy 2004;7:41–53.

5. Fox R, Swazey J. Medical morality is not bioethics—Medical ethics in China and the United States. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1984;27(3):336–60; Kleinman A. Medicine, Anthropology of. In: Reich W, ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics (revised edition). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan;, 1995:1667:74; Kleinman A. Writing at the Margin: Discourse between Anthropology and Medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995; Lopez J. How sociology can save bioethics . . . maybe. Sociology of Health & Illness 2004;26(7):875–96; Rosenberg C. Meanings, policies, and medicine: On the bioethical enterprise and history. Daedalus 1999;128:27–46.

6. Zussman R. The contributions of sociology to medical ethics. Hastings Center Report 2000;301:7–11.

7. Conrad P. The shifting engines of medicalization. Journal of Health & Social Behavior 2005;46:3–14; Conrad P, Leiter V. Medicalization, markets and consumers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2005;45:158–76; Purdy L. Medicalization, medical necessity, and feminist medicine. Bioethics 2001;15(3):248–61; Verweij M. Medicalization as a moral problem for preventative medicine. Bioethics 1999;13:89–113.

8. Moynihan R, Cassels A. Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients. New York: Nation Books; 2005; Moynihan R, Heath I, Henry D. Selling sickness: The pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British Medical Journal 2002;324:886–91.

9. Nelson J. Moral teachings from unexpected quarters: Lessons for bioethics from the social sciences and managed care. Hastings Center Report 2000;30(1):12–7.

10. Marcus G, Fischer M. Anthropology as Cultural Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1986.

11. Marshall P. Anthropology and bioethics. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1992;6:49–73.

12. De Vries R. How can we help? From “sociology in” to “sociology of” bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2004;32:279–92.

13. Good MJ. The biotechnical embrace. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 2001;25:395–410.

14. Van Maanen J. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.

15. Kleinman A. Moral experience and ethical reflection: Can ethnography reconcile them? A quandary for “the new bioethics.” Daedalus 1999;128:69–97.

16. Bosk C. Irony, ethnography, and informed consent. In: Hoffmaster B, ed. Bioethics in Social Context. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2001:199–220.

17. See note 16, Bosk 2001.

18. Hedgecoe A. Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 2004;18:120–43.

19. De Vries R, Turner L, Orfali K, Bosk C. Social science and bioethics: The way forward. Sociology of Health & Illness 2006;28:665–77.

20. Toulmin S. Ethics and “social functioning”: The organic theory reconsidered. In: Engelhardt HT, Callahan D, eds. Science, Ethics and Medicine. Hastings-On-Hudson: Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences; 1976:195–217.