A central task for clinical ethics consultants and committees (CEC) is providing analysis of, and advice on, prospective or retrospective clinical cases. However, several kinds of biases may threaten the integrity, relevance or quality of the CEC's deliberation. Bias should be identified and, if possible, reduced or counteracted. This paper provides a systematic classification of kinds of bias that may be present in a CEC's case deliberation. Six kinds of bias are discussed, with examples, as to their significance and risk (...) factors. Possible remedies are suggested. The potential for bias is greater when the case deliberation is performed by an individual ethics consultant than when an entire clinical ethics committee is involved. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 17-18, August 2012.

A clinical ethics consultant may, at times, be called upon to make independent substantive moral judgments and then offer justifications for those judgments. A CEC does not act unprofessionally by utilizing background beliefs that are religious in nature to justify those judgments. It is important, however, for a CEC to make such judgments authentically and, when asked, to offer up one’s reasons for why one believes the judgment is true in a transparent fashion.

Bioethics mediation is increasingly used as a method in clinical ethics cases. My goal in this paper is to examine the implicit theoretical assumptions of the bioethics mediation method developed by Dubler and Liebman. According to them, the distinguishing feature of bioethics mediation is that the method is useful in most cases of clinical ethics in which conflict is the main issue, which implies that there is either no real ethical issue or if there were, they are not the key (...) to finding a resolution. I question the tacit assumption of non-normativity of the mediation method in bioethics by examining the various senses in which bioethics mediation might be non-normative or neutral. The major normative assumption of the mediation method is the existence of common morality. In addition, the four-principle formulation of the theory articulated by Beauchamp and Childress implicitly provides the normative content for the method. Full acknowledgement of the theoretical and normative assumptions of bioethics mediation helps clinical ethicists better understand the nature of their job. In addition, the need for a robust philosophical background even in what appears to be a purely practical method of mediation cannot be overemphasized. Acknowledgement of the normative nature of bioethics mediation method necessitates a more critical attitude of the bioethics mediators towards the norms they usually take for granted uncritically as valid. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 10-11, August 2012.

Our aim in this article is to bring some clarity to the clinical ethics expertise debate by critiquing and replacing the taxonomy offered by the Core Competencies report. The orienting question for our taxonomy is: Can clinical ethicists offer justified, normative recommendations for active patient cases? Views that answer “no” are characterized as a “negative” view of clinical ethics expertise and are further differentiated based on (a) why they think ethicists cannot give justified normative recommendations and (b) what they think (...) ethicists can offer, if they cannot offer recommendations. Views that answer “yes” to the orienting question are characterized as a “positive” view of clinical ethics expertise. Positive views are distinguished according to four additional questions. First (P1), how are those recommendations generated? Second (P2), what is the nature of the recommendations? Third (P3), we ask, how are the recommendations justified? And finally (P4), how are the recommendations communicated? (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 19-20, August 2012.

In After God: Morality and Bioethics in a Secular Age, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. explores the broad implications for moral reasoning once a culture has lost a God’s-eye perspective. In this paper, I focus on the implications of Engelhardt’s views for clinical ethics consultation. I begin by examining the question of whether clinical ethics consultants should advocate a particular viewpoint and/or process during consultations or adopt a neutral stance. I then examine the implications of Engelhardt’s views for this question. Finally, (...) I discuss some of Engelhardt’s foundational ontological, metaphysical, meta-ethical, and epistemological commitments and how these commitments connect to his views on clinical ethics consultation. (shrink)

Definition of the problemQuality of care also includes a professional approach to ethical challenges. This involves the moral interpretation of an issue and the management of intra- and interpersonal reflection processes. Combining both is the central task of clinical ethics consultation (CEC). Despite its importance only a few studies have dealt with the appropriate methods for steering reflection processes.ArgumentsCEC requires a theory-based and methodological approach. The argumentation shows the effects that systems theory and systemic methods have on the effectiveness of (...) CEC. The main methods such as clarification of mandates and handling complexity are presented, and their impact on dealing with ethical challenges is shown through the discussion of two cases.ConclusionThe paper provides insight into systems thinking. It discusses the influence that systemic tools have on dealing with typical challenges within clinical ethics counselling. It also shows how specific counselling methods impact a normative level. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 13-15, August 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 11-13, August 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 15-17, August 2012.

Zusammenfassung Krankenhäuser müssen sich an der ethischen Qualität ihrer Versorgung messen lassen. Es geht dabei um einen Zustand, in dem allgemein anerkannte moralische Normen in der Patient:innenversorgung konsequent berücksichtigt werden. Damit sind zwei Ebenen angesprochen: die der ethisch-normativen Deutung und die der Gestaltung intra- und interpersonaler Prozesse. Die Klinische Ethik ist die Disziplin, die in der Verbindung beider ihre zentrale Aufgabe sieht. Um sie zu erfüllen, muss Ethikarbeit auf der Basis komplexer Kompetenzen erfolgen. Neben fundiertem Ethikwissen ist das Beherrschen von (...) geeigneten Methoden für die Steuerung solcher Prozesse eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung. Dazu aber ist die Studienlage vergleichsweise dünn. Die vorliegende Arbeit greift dieses Desiderat auf und geht dabei von der Hypothese aus, dass die Systemik einen wichtigen Beitrag zu einer im obigen Sinne effektiven Ethikarbeit leisten kann. Die Darstellung gibt einen Einblick in das systemische Denken und diskutiert die Möglichkeiten, die systemisches Handwerkszeug für die Herausforderungen der Klinischen Ethik bereithält. Die Ausführungen laden dazu ein, über den Einfluss systemischer Grundannahmen und Methoden auf die Gestaltung einer effektiven Ethikarbeit nachzudenken. Darüber hinaus ruft dieser Beitrag dazu auf, die Beratungsmethodik als solche mehr in den Fokus zu rücken. (shrink)

Moral conflicts over medical treatment that are the result of differences in fundamental moral commitments of the stakeholders, including religiously grounded commitments, can present difficult challenges for clinical ethics consultants. This article begins with a case example that poses such a conflict, then examines how consultants might use different approaches to clinical ethics consultation in an effort to facilitate the resolution of conflicts of this kind. Among the approaches considered are the authoritarian approach, the pure consensus approach, and the ethics (...) facilitation approach described in the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation report of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, as well as a patient advocate approach, a clinician advocate approach, and an institutional advocate approach. The article identifies clear limitations to each of these approaches. An analysis of the introductory case illustrates those limitations, and the article concludes that deep-seated conflicts of this kind may reveal inescapable limits of current approaches to clinical ethics consultation. (shrink)