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

HEC Forum 31 (4):305-323 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
Categories
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
EVATPF-3
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-11-13
View other versions
Added to PP index
2019-09-10

Total views
35 ( #55,597 of 2,432,429 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #52,738 of 2,432,429 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.