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. (shrink)

In this article we attempt to situate nursing within the interprofessional care team with respect to processes of ethical practice and ethical decision making. After briefly reviewing the concept of interprofessionalism, the idea of a nursing ethic as ‘unique’ within the context of an interprofessional team will be explored. We suggest that nursing’s distinct perspective on the moral matters of health care stem not from any privileged vantage point but rather from knowledge developed through the daily activities of nursing practice. (...) Because of their position vis-à-vis patients and families in everyday clinical care, nurses cultivate ethical knowledge of at least two forms: (1) relational knowledge; and (2) embodied knowledge. Through the integration of these forms of knowledge, nurses develop a unique moral perspective and can make a meaningful contribution to the realm of ethics in interprofessional care. (shrink)