Empirical Bioethics—Historical, Philosophical, and Methodological Perspectives

{"Empirical":[0],"bioethics":[1,160],"has":[2],"evolved":[3],"over":[4],"the":[5,24,40,58,63,79,83,104,116,123,147],"past":[6],"two":[7],"decades":[8],"largely":[9,54],"in":[10,115,152,186,203],"response":[11],"to":[12,20,62,88,195],"critiques":[13],"that":[14,86,126,158],"abstract":[15],"moral":[16,166],"reasoning":[17,144],"often":[18],"fails":[19],"adequately":[21],"engage":[22],"with":[23,103,142],"lived":[25],"experiences":[26],"of":[27,39,46,66,76,149],"those":[28],"affected":[29],"by":[30],"biomedical":[31],"decisions.":[32],"This":[33,100],"paper":[34,132],"offers":[35],"a":[36,96],"thorough":[37],"overview":[38],"historical,":[41],"methodological,":[42],"and":[43,73,109,121,145],"philosophical":[44,98,124],"foundations":[45],"empirical":[47,77,93,108,140,153,159],"bioethics,":[48,78],"tracing":[49],"its":[50,170,172],"development":[51],"from":[52,92],"traditional,":[53],"theoretical":[55],"approaches":[56],"through":[57],"so-called":[59],"\\"empirical":[60],"turn\\"":[61],"contemporary":[64],"diversity":[65],"empirical-ethical":[67],"methodologies.":[68],"After":[69],"examining":[70,122],"both":[71],"broad":[72],"narrow":[74],"conceptions":[75],"discussion":[80],"focuses":[81],"on":[82],"integrated":[84],"approach":[85],"aims":[87],"derive":[89],"normative":[90,110,143],"conclusions":[91,173],"findings":[94],"within":[95],"coherent":[97],"framework.":[99],"requires":[101],"engaging":[102],"epistemological":[105],"tension":[106],"between":[107],"approaches,":[111],"which":[112],"is":[113],"rooted":[114],"widely":[117],"recognized":[118],"fact-value":[119],"distinction":[120],"frameworks":[125],"could":[127],"support":[128],"such":[129],"integration.":[130],"The":[131,155],"further":[133],"outlines":[134],"key":[135],"methodological":[136],"models":[137],"for":[138,164,184,199],"linking":[139],"data":[141],"explores":[146],"challenge":[148],"ethical":[150,178,197],"relativism":[151],"bioethics.":[154],"analysis":[156],"concludes":[157],"provides":[161],"valuable":[162],"tools":[163],"context-sensitive":[165],"reflection,":[167],"while":[168],"acknowledging":[169],"limitations:":[171],"serve":[174],"neither":[175],"as":[176,181,191],"universal":[177],"rules":[179],"nor":[180],"prescriptive":[182],"\\"recipes\\"":[183],"decision-making":[185],"concrete":[187],"situations":[188],"but":[189],"rather":[190],"carefully":[192],"reasoned":[193],"efforts":[194],"articulate":[196],"guidance":[198],"practical":[200],"challenges":[201],"grounded":[202],"real-world":[204],"contexts.":[205]}

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Published
2026-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10619-8
Primary Topic
Ethics in medical practice
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Empirical Bioethics—Historical, Philosophical, and Methodological Perspectives

Urh Grošelj, Meta Rus, Erika Zelko
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Ethics in medical practice
article

Empirical Bioethics—Historical, Philosophical, and Methodological Perspectives

Urh Grošelj, Meta Rus, Erika Zelko
article en

Abstract

Empirical bioethics has evolved over the past two decades largely in response to critiques that abstract moral reasoning often fails to adequately engage with the lived experiences of those affected by biomedical decisions. This paper offers a thorough overview of the historical, methodological, and philosophical foundations of empirical bioethics, tracing its development from traditional, largely theoretical approaches through the so-called "empirical turn" to the contemporary diversity of empirical-ethical methodologies. After examining both broad and narrow conceptions of empirical bioethics, the discussion focuses on the integrated approach that aims to derive normative conclusions from empirical findings within a coherent philosophical framework. This requires engaging with the epistemological tension between empirical and normative approaches, which is rooted in the widely recognized fact-value distinction and examining the philosophical frameworks that could support such integration. The paper further outlines key methodological models for linking empirical data with normative reasoning and explores the challenge of ethical relativism in empirical bioethics. The analysis concludes that empirical bioethics provides valuable tools for context-sensitive moral reflection, while acknowledging its limitations: its conclusions serve neither as universal ethical rules nor as prescriptive "recipes" for decision-making in concrete situations but rather as carefully reasoned efforts to articulate ethical guidance for practical challenges grounded in real-world contexts.

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT), University of Ljubljana (SI), Ljubljana University Medical Centre (SI), National Institute of Chemistry (SI), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Ethics in medical practice
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.