Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9f2xs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T00:30:45.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reply to the Interpretation Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2010

KRISTEN HINE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Responses and Dialogue
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 232 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Eriksson A, Hoglund AT, Helgesson G. Do Ethical Guidelines Give Guidance? A Critical Examination of Eight Ethical Regulations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2008;17:16. My comments in this paper will be limited to parts one and three of the objection.

2. Bioethicists like to distinguish between rules and principles. The principle of respect for autonomy is not a rule; rules are thought to be more specific than principles. However, it is important to note that the authors think that the interpretation problem applies both to rules and principles.

3. Hardwig J. Autobiography, biography, and narrative ethics. In: Nelson HL, ed. Stories and Their Limits: Narrative Approaches to Bioethics. New York: Routledge; 1997:50–65.