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)

As groups around the country begin to craft standards for clinical ethics consultations, one focus of that work is the proper procedure for conducting ethics consults. From a recent empirical look into the workings of ethics consult services (ECSs), one worrisome finding is that some ECSs rely on a committee vote when making a recommendation. This article examines the practice of voting and its moral standing as a procedural strategy for arriving at a clinical ethics recommendation. I focus here on (...) the type of clinical ethics conflicts that are most likely to lead an ECS to vote, namely, conflicts involving ethical uncertainty—or, in the Greek, aporia. I argue that in cases of aporia, voting on an ethics conflict is not a morally justifiable procedure. Then on the same grounds that I use to show that voting is ethically problematic, I raise broader concerns about the common practice of making recommendations by other procedures. In contrast to the standard approach of adjudicating between moral claims, I argue that ECSs can best resolve aporetic conflict through the process of clinical ethics mediation. (shrink)

Many clinical ethics services issue recommendations about ethical controversies that arise in patient care. Their role is configured to be arbiters of moral permissibility, rendering verdicts on which option of those available constitute the morally superior course of action. They produce moral judgements on questions, such as: Should dialysis be started or foregone? Should life-sustaining care be withdrawn or continued? Is it permissible for the clinician to refuse a course of treatment desired by a particular patient or family? But decisions (...) in such cases presume a type of expertise that ethics consultants do not plausibly possess: i.e., the insight to know whose values – which ethical priorities – should trump in situations that are morally ambiguous and normatively contested. This is especially worrisome against the backdrop of the values-pluralism that exists in diverse, heterogeneous societies. This kind of authoritative response to moral uncertainty teeters on hubris, and can have a profoundly negative impact on the lives touched by these decisions. This chapter will argue that the moral arrogance that stems from a conviction of expertise is one of the gravest dangers of contemporary clinical ethics consultation. (shrink)