The Place for Religious Content in Clinical Ethics Consultations: A Reply to Janet Malek

HEC Forum 31 (4):305-323 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Janet Malek (91–102, 2019) argues that a “clinical ethics consultant’s religious worldview has no place in developing ethical recommendations or communicating about them with patients, surrogates, and clinicians.” She offers five types of arguments in support of this thesis: arguments from consensus, clarity, availability, consistency, and autonomy. This essay shows that there are serious problems for each of Malek’s arguments. None of them is sufficient to motivate her thesis. Thus, if it is true that the religious worldview of clinical ethics consultants should play no role whatsoever in their work as consultants, this claim will need to be defended on some other ground.

Author Profiles

Nicholas Colgrove
Augusta University
Kelly Kate Evans
Baylor University

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-10

Downloads
401 (#45,296)

6 months
138 (#29,018)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?