title: Medical ethics in the courtroom: a reappraisal.
abstract: Following up on a 1989 paper on the subject, this essay revisits the question of ethical expertise in the court room. Informed by recent developments in the use of ethics experts, the authors argue 1) that the adversarial nature of court proceedings challenges the integrity of the ethicist's pedagogical role; 2) that the use of ethics experts as normative authorities remains dubious; 3) that clarification of the State's interest in "protecting the ethical integrity of the medical profession" is urgently required; and 4) that the expertise of the ethicist may be more appropriately used in advising the legislature that in influencing the court.
authors.affiliation: Hastings Center, Garrison, NY 10524, USA.
authors.forename: V A
authors.initials: VA
authors.lastname: Sharpe
authors.forename: E D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Pellegrino
mesh_terms: D026688:Bioethical Issues; D018864:Cultural Diversity; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D026822:Ethicists; D033061:Ethics Consultation; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000592:standards*; D006076:Government; D006801:Humans; D007373:Interinstitutional Relations; D033222:Judicial Role; D007603:Jurisprudence; D007883:Legislation, Medical; D009014:Morals; D024382:Professional Role; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards; D012945:Social Values; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States; D014861:Washington