Ill-placed democracy: ethics consultations and the moral status of voting.
As groups around the country begin to craft standards for clinical ethics consultations, one focus of that work is the proper procedure for conducting ethics consults. From a recent empirical look into the workings of ethics consult services (ECSs), one worrisome finding is that some ECSs rely on a committee vote when making a recommendation. This article examines the practice of voting and its moral standing as a procedural strategy for arriving at a clinical ethics recommendation. I focus here on the type of clinical ethics conflicts that are most likely to lead an ECS to vote, namely, conflicts involving ethical uncertainty--or, in the Greek, aporia. I argue that in cases of aporia, voting on an ethics conflict is not a morally justifiable procedure. Then on the same grounds that I use to show that voting is ethically problematic, I raise broader concerns about the common practice of making recommendations by other procedures. In contrast to the standard approach of adjudicating between moral claims, I argue that ECSs can best resolve aporetic conflict through the process of clinical ethics mediation.
University of Pennsylvania Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Philadelphia, USA. fiester@mail.med.upenn.edu
Autumn M
AM
Fiester
D000328:Adult; D001926:Brain Death; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D015925:Cryopreservation / Q000941:ethics; D003709:Democracy; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D028663:Ethical Theory; D033061:Ethics Consultation / Q000941:ethics*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D028681:Moral Obligations; D017008:Negotiating; D010344:Patient Advocacy; D011057:Politics; D012945:Social Values; D013094:Spermatozoa