@article{8772815,
  abstract     = {{Casuistry, which involves analogical reasoning, is a popular methodological approach in bioethics. The method has its advantages and challenges, which are widely acknowledged. Meta-philosophical reflection on exactly how bioethical casuistry works and how the challenges can be addressed is limited. In this paper we propose a framework for structuring casuistry and analogical reasoning in bioethics. The framework is developed by incorporating theories and insights from the philosophy of science: Mary Hesse's ideas on horizontal and vertical relations in analogical reasoning in the sciences, Paul Bartha's articulation model of analogical reasoning and Daniel Steel's insights on mechanism-based extrapolation in biomedical research. Adopting our framework results in two practical benefits: it sets methodological standards for analogical reasoning and enables us to compare and evaluate diverging lines of analogical reasoning in a systematic way. Adopting the framework also has theoretical benefits: it helps to understand how analogical reasoning can have moral normativity; it pinpoints exactly where moral principles or theories enter analogical reasoning; and it helps to understand why casuistry is an attractive method in bioethics and in applied ethics more generally.}},
  author       = {{Weber, Erik and Wang, Qianru}},
  issn         = {{1386-7423}},
  journal      = {{MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY}},
  keywords     = {{Analogical reasoning,Bioethical casuistry,Causal inference,Ethical principles,Extrapolator's circle}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{69--84}},
  title        = {{The structure of analogical reasoning in bioethics}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-022-10123-x}},
  volume       = {{26}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

Altmetric

View in Altmetric

Web of Science

Times cited: