Advertisement

HEC Forum

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 305–323 | Cite as

The Place for Religious Content in Clinical Ethics Consultations: A Reply to Janet Malek

  • Nick ColgroveEmail author
  • Kelly Kate Evans
Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Janet Malek (HEC Forum 31(2):91–102, 2019) argues that a “clinical ethics consultant’s religious worldview has no place in developing ethical recommendations or communicating about them with patients, surrogates, and clinicians.” She offers five types of arguments in support of this thesis: arguments from (i) consensus, (ii) clarity, (iii) availability, (iv) consistency, and (v) autonomy. This essay shows that there are serious problems for each of Malek’s arguments. None of them is sufficient to motivate her thesis (nor are they jointly sufficient). Thus, if it is true that the religious worldview of clinical ethics consultants (CECs) should play no role whatsoever in their work as consultants, this claim will need to be defended on some other ground.

Keywords

Clinical ethics consult Religion Pluralism Spirituality Ethics expertise ASBH 

Notes

References

  1. American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Core Competencies Task Force. (2011). Core competencies for healthcare ethics consultation (2nd ed.). Glenview: American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.Google Scholar
  2. Archard, D. (2011). Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics, 25(3), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2012). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, J. (2004). Abortion and Christian bioethics: The continuing ethical importance of abortion. Christian Bioethics,10(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherry, M. J. (2010). The illusion of consensus: Harvesting organs from prisoners convicted of capital crimes. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,35(2), 220–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherry, M. J. (2017). Organ vouchers and barter markets: Saving lives, reducing suffering, and trading in human organs. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,42(5), 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engelhardt, H. T. (1996). The foundations of bioethics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Engelhardt, H. T. (2017). After God: Morality and bioethics in a secular age. Yonkers: St. Vladmir’s Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fletcher, J., & Siegler, M. (1996). What are the goals of ethics consultation? A consensus statement. Journal of Clinical Ethics,7(2), 122–126.Google Scholar
  11. Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge?” Analysis,23(6), 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ichikawa, J. J., & Steup, M. (2018). The analysis of knowledge. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/knowledge-analysis/. Accessed 20 Sept 2019.
  13. Iltis, A. S., & Rasmussen, L. M. (2016). The ‘ethics’ expertise in clinical ethics consultation. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,41(4), 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iltis, A. S., & Sheehan, M. (2016). Expertise, ethics expertise, and clinical ethics consultation: Achieving terminological clarity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,41(4), 416–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kodish, E., Fins, J. J., Braddock, C., III, Cohn, F., Dubler, N. N., Danis, M., et al. (2013). Quality attestation for clinical ethics consultants: A two-step model from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. Hastings Center Report,43, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lane, R. (2006). Synechistic bioethics: How a Peircean views the abortion debate. Contemporary Pragmatism,3(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levin, M., & Birnbaum, I. (2000). Jewish bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,25(4), 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Malek, J. (2019). The appropriate role of a clinical ethics consultant’s religious worldview in consultative work: Nearly none. HEC Forum,31(2), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pilkington, B. C. (2018). A market in human flesh: Ramsey’s arguments on organ sale, 50 years later. Christian Bioethics,24(2), 196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rasmussen, L. M. (2011). An ethics expertise for clinical ethics consultation. The Journal of Law, Medicine Ethics, 39(4), 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rasmussen, L. M. (2016). Clinical ethics consultants are not “ethics” experts—but they do have expertise. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 41(4), 384–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rebers, S., Aaronson, N. K., van Leeuwen, F. E., & Schmidt, M. K. (2016). Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention. BMC Medical Ethics,17(9), 1–11.Google Scholar
  23. Saenz, V. (2014). Bioethics and disagreement: Organ Markets, abortion, cognitive enhancement, double effect, and other key issues in bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,39(3), 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saunders, B. (2012). Altruism or solidarity? The motives for organ donation and two proposals. Bioethics,26(7), 376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinbock, B. (2019). Hastings center bioethics briefings abortion. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/abortion/. Accessed 20 Sept 2019.
  26. Tong, R. (1991). The epistemology and ethics of consensus: Uses and misuses of ‘ethical’ expertise. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 16(4), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Trotter, G. (2003). Pragmatic bioethics and the big fat moral community. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,28(5/6), 655–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trotter, G. (2006). Bioethics and deliberative democracy: Five warnings from Hobbes. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,31(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veatch, R. T. (1991). Consensus of expertise: The role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,16(4), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Center for Bioethics, Healthcare, and SocietyWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations