Jensen, Eric (2008) Through thick and thin : rationalizing the public bioethical debate over therapeutic cloning. Clinical Ethics, Vol.3 (No.4). pp. 194-198. doi:10.1258/ce.2008.008037

Full text not available from this repository, contact author.

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Beauchamp and Childress (1994) elaborated an approach to bioethical deliberations based on four universalistic principles. This framework of ‘principlism’ has been criticized from within biomedical ethics as insufficient and problematic. However, this article considers a more radical sociological critique by John Evans (2002) that rejects the entire approach of defining ‘principles’ a priori. This sociological critique is based on classical sociologist Max Weber's (1925) distinction between instrumental (‘thin’) and substantive (‘thick’) rationality. As an exploratory assessment of Evans' critique, his conceptualization of ‘thin’ versus ‘thick’ rationalization is applied to a large sample of Anglo-American press coverage (n = 5126) of the bioethical controversy surrounding therapeutic cloning. Given the role of mainstream news media as a key arena for the discursive framing of biomedical research and its ethical implications, the findings raise important questions about principlism and the mediation of bioethical debates on issues such as therapeutic cloning.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BJ Ethics H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Sociology
Journal or Publication Title:	Clinical Ethics
Publisher:	Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd.
ISSN:	1477-7509
Official Date:	2008
Dates:	Date Event 2008 Published
Volume:	Vol.3
Number:	No.4
Number of Pages:	5
Page Range:	pp. 194-198
DOI:	10.1258/ce.2008.008037
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item