Context: Although ethics consultation is commonplace in United States hospitals, descriptive data about this health service are lacking. Objective: To describe the prevalence, practitioners, and processes of ethics consultation in U.S. hospitals. Design: A 56-item phone or questionnaire survey of the “best informant” within each hospital. Participants: Random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals, stratified by bed size. Results: The response rate was 87.4%. Ethics consultation services were found in 81% of all general hospitals in the U.S., and in 100% (...) of hospitals with more than 400 beds. The median number of consults performed by ECSs in the year prior to survey was 3. Most individuals performing ethics consultation were physicians, nurses, social workers, or chaplains. Only 41% had formal supervised training in ethics consultation. Consultation practices varied widely both within and between ECSs. For example, 65% of ECSs always made recommendations, whereas 6% never did. These findings highlight a need to clarify standards for ethics consultation practices. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of (...) requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultants occasionally encounter unethical and/or unprofessional behavior as part of their normal job functions. In this article, we explore whether resigning (i.e., threatening resignation or resigning) and whistleblowing are acceptable methods ethics consultants can use to address these situations. Per our analysis, whether one considers ethics consultants private or public employees, loyal to their employer or to patients, families, and the public, resigning and whistleblowing are all acceptable, if not obligatory, actions of ethics consultants in certain circumstances. In (...) this article, we analyze salient characteristics of ethics consultation as a profession as they pertain to resignation and whistleblowing in the context of ethics consultation. We also present tentative criteria for when ethics consultants are justified, if not obligated, to resign or blow the whistle. (shrink)

One element of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities’ recently-piloted quality attestation portfolio for clinical ethics consultants is a “philosophy of clinical ethics consultation statement” describing the candidate’s approach to clinical ethics consultation. To date, these statements have been under-explored in the literature, in contrast to philosophy statements in other fields such as academic teaching. In this article, I argue there is merit in expanding the content of these statements beyond clinical ethics consultation alone to describe the author’s approach (...) to other important “domains” of healthcare ethics practice. I also claim such statements have at least three additional uses outside quality attestation: as a reflective practice learning tool to increase role clarity among practicing healthcare ethicists and bioethics fellows; assisting practicing healthcare ethicists in clarifying role expectations with those they work with; and helping inform developing professional practice standards. (shrink)

A major obstacle to broad support of clinical ethics consultation is suspicion regarding the nature of the moral expertise it claims to offer. The suspicion seems to be confirmed when the field fails to make its moral expertise explicit. In this vacuum, critics suggest the following:Clinical ethics consultation's legitimacy depends on its ability to offer an expertise in moral matters.Expertise in moral matters is knowledge of a singular moral truth which applies to everyone.The claim that a clinical ethics consultant can (...) offer knowledge of a singular moral truth in virtue of her professional training is absurd, false, or gravely immoral.Therefore,The field is illegitimate. (shrink)

The legitimacy of clinical ethics consultation is often implied to rest on the legitimacy of moral expertise. In turn, moral expertise seems subject to many serious critiques, the success of which implies that clinical ethics consultation is illegitimate. I explore a number of these critiques, and forward “ethics expertise,” as distinct from “moral expertise,” as a way of avoiding these critiques. I argue that “ethics expertise” succeeds in avoiding most of the critiques, captures what clinical ethics consultants might justifiably do, (...) and expresses a subject matter which can be taught and assessed. (shrink)