Since the 1960s, it has been recognized that “medical ethics,” the area of inquiry about the obligations of practitioners of medicine, is inadequate for capturing and addressing the complexities associated with modern medicine, human health, and wellbeing. Subsequently, a new specialty emerged which involved scholars and professionals from a variety of disciplines who had an interest in healthcare ethics. The name adopted is variously biomedical ethics or bioethics. The practice of bioethics in clinical settings is clinical ethics and its primary (...) aim is to resolve patient care issues and conflicts. Nurses are among these clinical ethicists. They are drawn to the study and practice of bioethics and its applications as way to address the problems encountered in practice. A significant number are among the ranks of clinical ethicists. However, in the role of bio- or clinical ethicist, some retained the title of their original profession, calling themselves nurse ethicists, and some did not. In this article, we explore under which conditions it is permissible or preferable that one retains one’s prior profession’s nomenclature as a prefix to “ethicist,” under which conditions it is not, and why. We emphasize the need for transparency of purpose related to titles and their possible influence on individual and social good. (shrink)

Anthropologists and sociologists offer numerous critiques of bioethics. Social scientists criticize bioethicists for their arm-chair philosophizing and socially ungrounded pontificating, offering philosophical abstractions in response to particular instances of suffering, making all-encompassing universalistic claims that fail to acknowledge cultural differences, fostering individualism and neglecting the importance of families and communities, and insinuating themselves within the “belly” of biomedicine. Although numerous aspects of bioethics warrant critique and reform, all too frequently social scientists offer ungrounded, exaggerated criticisms of bioethics. Anthropological and sociological (...) critiques of bioethics are hampered by the tendency to equate bioethics with clinical ethics and moral theory in bioethics with principlist bioethics. Also, social scientists neglect the role of bioethicists in addressing organizational ethics and other “macro-social” concerns. If anthropologists and sociologists want to provide informed critiques of bioethics they need to draw upon research methods from their own fields and develop richer, more informed analyses of what bioethicists say and do in particular social settings. (shrink)