Casuistry As A Method Of Teaching Medical Ethics

As a relatively young discipline, medical ethics faces a number of challenges, one of which is the development of a teaching methodology. Within this field there is a co-existence of different spheres of human knowledge – both scientific and social, however, ethics is above all a science of interpersonal relations. This requires the development of a sustainable and flexible toolkit for resolving ethical dilemmas. 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.