Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Malek’s Programmatic Secularism? A Dissent.Ashley Moyse - 2022 - Christian Bioethics 28 (2):99-108.
    Programmatic secularism aims to secure public reason from rival rationalities, notably those from religious experience and education. The gathering of knowledge in clinical ethics into a concrete array of consensus claims and consensus-derived principles are thought by Janet Malek to secure such public reason—an essential tool for clinical ethics consultants to execute their professional role. The author compares this gathering of knowledge to an understanding of what technology is. Accordingly, the following interrogates Malek’s programmatic secularism, which is a moral technique (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Policing the Sublime: The Metaphysical Harms of Irreligious Clinical Ethics.Kimbell Kornu - 2022 - Christian Bioethics 28 (2):109-121.
    Janet Malek has recently argued that the religious worldview of the clinical ethics consultant should play no normative role in clinical ethics consultation. What are the theological implications of a normatively secular clinical ethics? I argue that Malek’s proposal constitutes an irreligious clinical ethics, which commits multiple metaphysical harms. First, I summarize Malek’s key claims for a secular clinical ethics. Second, I explicate both John Milbank’s notion of ontological violence and Timothy Murphy’s irreligious bioethics to show how they apply to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Severing Clinical Ethics Consultation From the Ethical Commitments and Preferences of Clinical Ethics Consultants.Ana S. Iltis - 2022 - Christian Bioethics 28 (2):122-133.
    Recent work calls for excluding clinical ethics consultants’ religious ethical commitments from formulating recommendations about particular cases and communicating those recommendations. I demonstrate that three arguments that call for excluding religious ethical commitments from this work logically imply that consultants may not use their secular ethical commitments in their work. The call to sever clinical ethics consultation from the ethical commitments of clinical ethics consultants has implications for the scope of work consultants may do and for the competencies required for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • How to Spot a Usurper: Clinical Ethics Consultation and (True) Moral Authority.Kelly Kate Evans & Nicholas Colgrove - 2022 - Christian Bioethics 28 (2):143-156.
    Clinical ethics consultants are not moral authorities. Standardization of CECs’ professional role does not confer upon them moral authority. Certification of particular CECs does not confer upon them moral authority. Or, so we will argue. This article offers a distinctly Orthodox Christian response to those who claim that CECs—or any other academically trained bioethicist—retain moral authority. This article proceeds in three parts. First, we discuss recent movements toward the certification of CECs in the United States, focusing primarily on proposals and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Devil in the Details.Nicholas Colgrove - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (12):18-20.
    McCarthy et al.’s proposal gains much of its plausibility by relying on a superficial treatment of justice, human dignity, sin, and the common good within the Christian tradition. Upon closer inspection of what these terms mean within the context of Christianity, it becomes clear that despite using the same phrases (e.g., a commitment to “protecting vulnerable populations,” the goal of “promoting justice,” etc.) contemporary secular bioethical goals are often deeply at odds with goals of Christian bioethics. So, while the authors (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • If You Love the Forest, Then Do Not Kill the Trees: Health Care and a Place for the Particular.Nicholas Colgrove - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (3):255-271.
    There are numerous ways in which “the particular”—particular individuals, particular ideologies, values, beliefs, and perspectives—are sometimes overlooked, ignored, or even driven out of the healthcare profession. In many such cases, this is bad for patients, practitioners, and the profession. Hence, we should seek to find a place for the particular in health care. Specific topics that I examine in this essay include distribution of health care based on the particular needs of patients, the importance of protecting physicians’ right to conscientious (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Responding Well to Spiritual Worldviews: A Taxonomy for Clinical Ethicists.Trevor M. Bibler - forthcoming - HEC Forum:1-15.
    Every clinical ethics consultant, no matter their own spirituality, will meet patients, families, and healthcare professionals whose spiritualities anchor their moral worldviews. How might ethicists respond to those who rely on spirituality when making medical decisions? And further, should ethicists incorporate their own spiritual commitments into their clinical analyses and recommendations? These questions prompt reflection on foundational issues in the philosophy of medicine, political and moral theory, and methods of proper clinical ethics consultation. Rather than attempting to offer definitive answers (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark