Overview of Psychiatric Ethics IV: The Method of Casuistry

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this paper is to describe the method of ethical analysis known as casuistry and consider its merits as a basis of ethical deliberation in psychiatry.

Conclusions: Casuistry approximates the legal arguments of common law. It examines ethical dilemmas by adopting a taxonomic approach to ‘paradigm’ cases, using a technique akin to that of normative analogical reasoning. Casuistry offers a useful method in ethical reasoning through providing a practical means of evaluating the merits of a particular course of action in a particular clinical situation. As a method ethical moral reasoning in psychiatry, casuistry suffers from a paucity of paradigm cases and its failure to fully contextualize ethical dilemmas by relying on common morality theory as its basis.

Keywords

casuistry ethics psychiatry

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Jonsen

Toulmin

. The Abuse of Casuistry. University of Berkeley Press, Berkeley 1988.

2. Walter

, Rey

, Dekker

. The humble case report. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2001; 35: 240–245.

3. Jenicek

. Clinical Case Reporting in Evidence-based Medicine. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford 1999.

4. Beauchamp

Childress

. Principles of Biomedical Ethics5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York 2001.

5. Jonsen

A. Casuistry

, In: Sugarman

, Sulmasy

. Methods in Medical Ethics. New York: Georgetown University Press, 2002; 104–125.

6. Jonsen

. Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theoretical Medicine 1991; 12: 295–307.

7. Jonsen

. Case analysis in clinical ethics. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 1990; 1: 63–65.

8. Robertson

, Walter

. An overview of psychiatric ethics II: virtue ethics and the ethics of care. Australasian Psychiatry 2007; 15: 207–211.

9. Bray

. Moral responsibility and borderline personality disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2003; 37: 270–276.

10.

10. Miller

. Casuistry and Modern Ethics. University of Chicago Press, London 1996.

11.

11. Ross

. The Foundation of Ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1939.

12.

12. Tallmon

J. Casuistry

. In:. Sloane

. Encyclopaedia of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; 83–88.

13.

13. Pascal

. The Provincial Letters. M'Crie

, (trans). http://philosophy.eserver.org/pascal-provincial-letters.txt , (1656)(accessed 22 March 2007).

14.

14. Engelhardt

. The Foundations of Bioethics2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York 1996.

15.

15. Clouser

. Common morality as an alternative to principlism. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1995; 5: 219–236.

16.

16. Gert

. Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press, New York 1998.

17.

17. Turner

. Zones of consensus and zones of conflict: questioning the “common morality” presumption in bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2003; 13: 193–218.

18.

18. Arras

. Getting down to cases: the revival of casuistry in bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1991; 16: 29–51.

19.

19. Wexler

. Patients, therapist, and third parties: The victimological virtues of Tarasoff. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1979; 2: 1–28.

20.

20. Stone

. The Tarasoff case and some of its progeny: suing psychotherapists to safeguard society. In:. Law, Psychiatry and Morality: Essays and Analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1984; 161–190.

21.

21. Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. 1976, 551 P2d 334.