IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i10p2715-2726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral reasoning as a model for health promotion

Author

Listed:
  • Buchanan, David

Abstract

The paper describes a model of moral reasoning used to guide the conduct of health researchers and recommends that this model be applied in health promotion. It argues that this model is a more appropriate and sound way of thinking about the means and ends of health education, with implications for both research and practice. When faced with ethical dilemmas about the most appropriate course of action in health research, investigators and bioethicists conduct normative analyses to identify good reasons for choosing one option over another. These reasons provide the grounds for determining what one should do, and for changing past practices in light of new moral considerations. Since the research community seems to think that this is a good way to guide and change their own behavior, this model of moral reasoning appears to have relevance and potential application to the field of health education, which engages in analogous processes of seeking to inform and change the behaviors of the lay public. The article sets this approach in the context of a humanistic understanding of human motivation and presents two case examples to illustrate the process of moral reasoning. The humanistic model outlined here helps to explain why health promotion has not made much progress in developing effective behavior change programs and it offers a more promising prospect for demonstrating success by identifying a broader range of relevant outcomes. The paper concludes by recommending that greater attention be paid to the ethical dimensions of human agency in order to develop a more coherent body of knowledge to advance both research and practice in health promotion.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchanan, David, 2006. "Moral reasoning as a model for health promotion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2715-2726, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:10:p:2715-2726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00352-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glantz, L.H., 2002. "Nontherapeutic research with children: Grimes v Kennedy Krieger Institute," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(7), pages 1070-1073.
    2. Mastroianni, A.C. & Kahn, J.P., 2002. "Risk and responsibility: Ethics, Grimes v Kennedy Krieger, and public health research involving children," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(7), pages 1073-1076.
    3. Buchanan, D.R. & Miller, F.G., 2006. "Justice and fairness in the Kennedy Krieger institute lead paint study: The ethics of public health research on less expensive, less effective interventions," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(5), pages 781-787.
    4. Needleman, H.L., 1998. "Childhood lead poisoning: The promise and abandonment of primary prevention," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(12), pages 1871-1877.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:10:p:2715-2726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.