[3][4] The concept, which draws especially on the work of the philosophers Edmund Husserl[5] and Emmanuel Levinas,[6] is based on the recognition that most ethical decisions in everyday life are not taken on the basis of explicit rational argument or calculation but rather occur in a continuous flux of relationships and dialogues.
Macroethics tends to emphasise principles, universal claims and normative rules, while microethics is context-specific and local, and acknowledges the role of modalities of communication and decision-making that go beyond rational argumentation.
Conversely, purely macroethical considerations are often disengaged from the concrete lifeworlds of ethical subjects and so lack coherence or relevance.
By contrast, the microethical processes relate to the internal details of the interactive engagements between the doctor and the patient, including non-linguistic and affective responses, often signified by small adjustments in facial expressions, posture, tone of voice or choice of words, and the great variety of meanings and values and which both participants call.
[8] However, the application of drugs or other therapeutic techniques also requires specific examination of the needs of individual patients, including their health conditions, their cultural preferences, their personal values and those of their families, and economic and other considerations.