A systematic review of empirical bioethics methodologies

BMC Medical Ethics

Michael Dunn¹  Jonathan Ives²  Rachel Davies³ 

[1] The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK;Medicine, Ethics, Society and History, School of Health and Population Sciences, The University of Birmingham, 90 Vincent Drive, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;C/O Medicine, Ethics, Society and History, School of Health and Population Sciences, The University of Birmingham, 90 Vincent Drive, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

关键词: Epistemology;    Consensus;    Coherence;    Integrated ethics;    Methodology;    Method;    Empirical bioethics;   

Others  :  1139105
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0010-3

 received in 2014-08-12, accepted in 2015-02-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Despite the increased prevalence of bioethics research that seeks to use empirical data to answer normative research questions, there is no consensus as to what an appropriate methodology for this would be. This review aims to search the literature, present and critically discuss published Empirical Bioethics methodologies.

Methods

MedLine, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched between 15/02/12 and 16/06/13 to find relevant papers. These were abstract reviewed independently by two reviewers with papers meeting the inclusion criteria subjected to data extraction.

Results

33 publications (32 papers and one book chapter) were included which contained 32 distinct methodologies. The majority of these methodologies (n = 22) can be classed as either dialogical or consultative, and these represent two extreme ‘poles’ of methodological orientation. Consideration of these results provoked three central questions that are central to the planning of an empirical bioethics study, and revolve around how a normative conclusion can be justified, the analytic process through which that conclusion is reached, and the kind of conclusion that is sought.

Conclusion

When considering which methodology or research methods to adopt in any particular study, researchers need to think carefully about the nature of the claims they wish to generate through their analyses, and how these claims align with the aims of the research. Whilst there are superficial similarities in the ways that identical research methods are made use of, the different meta-ethical and epistemological commitments that undergird the range of methodological approaches adopted rehearse many of the central foundational disagreements that play out within moral philosophy and bioethical analysis more broadly. There is little common ground that transcends these disagreements, and we argue that this is likely to present a challenge for the legitimacy of the bioethical enterprise. We conclude, however, that this heterogeneity ought to be welcomed, but urge those involved in the field to engage meaningfully and explicitly with questions concerning what kinds of moral claim they want to be able to make, about normative justification and the methodological process, and about the coherence of these components within their work.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Davies et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ives J: A method of reflexive balancing in a pragmatic, interdisciplinary and reflexive bioethics. Bioethics 2014, 28(6):302-12.
• [2]Frith L: Symbiotic bioethics: a practical methodology. Bioethics 2010, 26(4):198-206.
• [3]Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K: The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 2005, 19(1):49-71.
• [4]Dunn M, Sheehan M, Parker M, Hope T: Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2012, 21(4):466-80.
• [5]Hedgecoe A: Critical bioethics: beyond the social science critique. Bioethics 2004, 18(2):120-43.
• [6]De Vries R: How can we help? From ‘Sociology In’ to ‘Sociology Of’ Bioethics. J Law and med Ethics 2004, 32(32):279-92.
• [7]Kon A: The role of empirical research in bioethics. Am J Bioethics 2009, 9(6–7):59-65.
• [8]Solomon M: Realising bioethics goals in practice: ten ways an “is” can help an “ought”. Hastings Centre Report 2005, 35(4):40-7.
• [9]Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, Otten W, Dupois H, Kievit J: Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Health Care Philos 2004, 7:55-69.
• [10]Leget C, Borry P, De Vries R: ‘Nobody Tosses a Dwarf!’ the relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):226-35.
• [11]Strech D, Sofaer N: How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics 2008, 38:121-6.
• [12]McDougall R: Systematic reviews in bioethics: types, challenges, and value. J Med Philosophy 2014, 39:89-97. IEEN
• [13]Owens J, Ives J, Cribb A: IEEN workshop report: aims and methods in interdisciplinary and empirical bioethics. Clinical Ethics 2012, 7:157-60.
• [14]McMillan J, Hope T: The possibility of empirical psychiatric ethics’. In Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Edited by Widdershoven G, McMillan J, Hope T, Scheer L. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2008:9-22.
• [15]De Vries R, Gordijn B: Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies’. Bioethics 2009, 23:193-201.
• [16]Hurst S: What empirical turn in bioethics?’. Bioethics 2010, 24:429-44.
• [17]Higgins J, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
• [18]Widdershoven G, Tineke A, Molewijk B: Empirical ethics as a dialogical practice. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):236-48.
• [19]Kim S, Wall I, Stanczyk A, De Vries R: Assessing the public’s views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2009, 4(4):3-16.
• [20]De Vries M, van Leeuwen E: Reflective equilibrium and empirical data: third person moral experiences in empirical medical ethics. Bioethics 2010, 24(4):490-8.
• [21]Ives J, Dunn M: ‘Who’s arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics 2010, 24(5):256-65.
• [22]Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K: What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Med Health Care Philos 2004, 7(1):41-53.
• [23]Haimes E, Williams R: Sociology, ethics and the priority of the particular: learning from a case study of genetic deliberations. Br J Sociol 2007, 58(3):457-76.
• [24]Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Emerging Biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London; 2012.