Imagen de Portada
Código QR

Clinical Decision-Making: The Case Against The New Casuistry.

Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin have argued that the best way to resolve the complex issues in medical settings is to focus on the actual details of cases and then determine what to do in the given cases. This approach to medical decision-making, labeled "casuistry," has met with much criticism. I...

Descripción completa

Publicado en:Issues in Law & Medicine Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 143 - 172
Autor principal: Ananth, Mahesh
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Issues in Law & Medicine Fall2017
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=125384594&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 125384594
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        87568160
        ILM
      jtl: Issues in Law & Medicine
      issn: 87568160
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Fall2017
      vid: 32
      iid: 2
      pid: 1368
      pub: Issues in Law & Medicine
      place: Terre Haute, Indiana
    artinfo:
      ui:
        125384594
        125384594
      ppf: 143
      ppct: 29
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Clinical Decision-Making: The Case Against The New Casuistry.
      aug:
        au: Ananth, Mahesh
        affil: Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Indiana University-South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634
      sug:
        subj:
          Decision Making, Clinical
          Decision Making, Ethical
          Ethics, Medical
      ab: Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin have argued that the best way to resolve the complex issues in medical settings is to focus on the actual details of cases and then determine what to do in the given cases. This approach to medical decision-making, labeled "casuistry," has met with much criticism. In response, Carson Strong has attempted to save much of Jonsen and Toulmin's version of casuistry. This analysis reveals that Strong's recent salvage efforts fail to deflect the major criticisms. The upshot of this analysis is that Jonsen and Toulmin's version of casuistry is not an appropriate framework from which to resolve complex issues in clinical settings.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N