The role of the clinical ethics consultant in "unsettled" cases.
In this article I take up a central question posed by the article jointly authored with Bill Winslade in this issue of JCE: What should be the role of clinical ethics consultants (CECs) in (what we call) an unsettled case: that is, a situation in which the range of allowable choices, among which the parties to a bioethical disagreement must select, cannot be clearly or completely specified? I argue here that CECs should, in such cases, guide the parties by presenting their own reasoned conclusions about what the scope of allowable choices should be taken to include. Since this position challenges the received view that CECs must not express their own moral positions or conclusions in their role as ethicists, I try to defend my view of the CEC's role in unsettled cases against several objections.
Department of Philosophy at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA. dmadams@csupomona.edu
David M
DM
Adams
D002887:Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18; D032921:Consensus; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics*; D033061:Ethics Consultation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D028681:Moral Obligations; D016134:Organizational Policy; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000941:ethics*; D014314:Trisomy