The purpose of this paper is to show that the method of casuistry has a very important role in developing certain skills in medical ethics students. Through solving cases, future medical professionals develop the ability to detect ethical conflicts, as well as to analyse them. The main objective of this work is to explore two of the fundamental ethical approaches – principlism and casuistry, with their respective advantages and disadvantages. In this way, arguments are put forward in favour of the statement that casuistry is complete and full value method only when it is based on theoretical knowledge.
In conclusion: casuistry should be considered as a method and not as a theory; it must work in collaboration with fundamental moral theories; case solving develops students' ability to compare cases with paradigms, which facilitates their choice of solution; however, casuistry should not rely solely on thinking by analogy and learning case studies, as this would exclude all other factors (social, cultural, religious, philosophical) that influence good decision-making.
Йорданова М. Предизвикателства пред обучението на рентгенови лаборанти за удовлетворяване потребностите на съвременното здравеопазване. Сборник с доклади от Научна конференция с международно участие на Бургаски свободен университет „Знанието – традиции, иновации, перспективи“. 2013; 1: 400-404.
Търпоманова Цв. Възможности за реализация на инспекторите по обществено здраве като специалисти по здравно образование в училищата. Здравна икономика и мениджмънт. 2018; 1 (67): 33-38.
Търпоманова Цв. Агресията в училищна възраст – предизвикателство за родители и учители. Варна: МУ-Варна; 2019: 21-32.
Христова Ст. Предимства и недостатъци на основните модели за вземане на биоетични решения. Етически изследвания. 2016; 1. Available from: https://jesbg.com/hristova-predimstva-i-nedostatatsi-na-osnovnite-modeli-za-vzemane-na-bioetichni-reshenia/
Arras J D. Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 1991; 16(1): 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/16.1.29
Beachump T L, Childres J F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
Boyle J. Casuistry. In: Khushf G. (eds) Handbook of Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Dordrecht; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2127-5_4
Clouser K D, Gert B. Common Morality. In: Khushf G. (eds) Handbook of Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Dordrecht; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2127-5_6
Jonsen A R, Toulmin S. The Abuse of Casuistry, Berkeley, California: University of California Press; 1988.
Jonsen A.R. Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theor Med Bioeth 1991; 12: 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489890
Jonsen A R. Strong on specification. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2000; 25(3): 348–360.
Schmidt D P. "Casuistry". Encyclopedia Britannica. 2014; Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/casuistry. Accessed 6 February 2021.
Slavova V. On the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach to the teaching of medical ethics. Strategies for Policy in Science and Education. 2020; 28(5): 519-531.
Tomlinson T. Casuistry in medical ethics: Rehabilitated, or repeat offender?. Theoretical Medicine. 1994; 15: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999216
