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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 305-323 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | HEC Forum |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 1 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- ASBH
- Clinical ethics consult
- Ethics expertise
- Pluralism
- Religion
- Spirituality
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Issues, ethics and legal aspects
- Health(social science)
- Health Policy
