We argue for the addition of trauma informed awareness, training, and skill in clinical ethics consultation by proposing a novel framework for Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation (TIEC). This approach expands on the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) framework for, and key insights from feminist approaches to, ethics consultation, and the literature on trauma informed care (TIC). TIEC keeps ethics consultation in line with the provision of TIC in other clinical settings. Most crucially, TIEC (like (...) TIC) is systematically sensitive to culture, history, difference, power, social exclusion, oppression, and marginalization. By engaging a neonatal intensive care ethics consult example, we define our TIEC approach and illustrate its application. Through TIEC we argue it is the role of ethics consultants to not only hold open moral spaces, but to furnish them in morally habitable ways for all stakeholders involved in the ethics consultation process, including patients, surrogates, and practitioners. (shrink)

Healthcare ethics consultation is therefore one of the most consequential, institutionally accepted, and widespread forms of public philosophy in the United States. In this chapter, the authors begin with an overview of the development of healthcare ethics and its emergence as a concrete practice embedded in healthcare settings. They then describe the core ethical principles that inform the everyday practice of ethics consultations and the generally accepted steps involved in conducting a consultation. The authors discuss the (...) class='Hi'>role of clinical ethicists in medical education and policy development. Finally, they conclude with some remarks on the distinctive contributions made by those with philosophical training to these endeavors and the importance of continued engagement by philosophers in this important public work. (shrink)

Whether ethics is too important to be left to the experts or so important that it must be is an age-old question. The emergence of clinical ethicists raises it again, as a question about professionalism. What role clinical ethicists should play in healthcare decision making – teacher, mediator, or consultant – is a question that has generated considerable debate but no consensus.

The COVID-19 pandemic swept through New York City swiftly and with devastating effect. The crisis put enormous pressure on all hospital services, including the clinical ethics consultation team. This report describes the recent experience of the ethics consultants and Columbia University Irving Medical Center during the COVID-19 surge and compares the case load and characteristics to the corresponding period in 2019. By reporting this experience, we hope to supplement the growing body of COVID-19 scientific literature and provide details (...) of the human toll the virus took on our hospitals and communities. We also aim to highlight the role of the clinical ethics consultant as well as areas of policy and law that may need to be addressed in order to be better prepared for a future public health crisis. (shrink)

While there is no denying the relevance of ethical knowledge and analytical and cognitive skills in ethics consultation, such knowledge and skills can be overemphasized. They can be effectively put into practice only by an ethics consultant, who has a broad range of other skills, including interpretive and communicative capacities as well as the capacity effectively to address the psychosocial needs of patients, family members, and healthcare professionals in the context of an ethics consultation case. In (...) this paper, I discuss how emotion can play an important interpretive role in clinical ethics consultation and why attention to the role of defense mechanisms can be helpful. I concentrate on defense mechanisms, arguing first, that the presence of these mechanisms is understandable given the emotional stresses and communicative occlusions that occur between the families of patients and critical care professionals in the circumstances of critical care; second, that identifying these mechanisms is essential for interpreting and managing how these factors influence the way that the “facts” of the case are understood by family members; and, third, that effectively addressing these mechanisms is an important component for effectively doing ethics consultation. Recognizing defense mechanisms, understanding how and why they operate, and knowing how to deal with these defense mechanisms when they pose problems for communication or decision making are thus essential prerequisites for effective ethics consultation, especially in critical care. (shrink)

The primary objective of The Health Care Ethics Con sultant is to focus attention on an immediate practical problem: the role and responsibilities, the education and training, and the certification and accreditation of health care ethics consultants. The principal questions addressed in this book include: Who should be considered health care ethics consultants? Whom should they advise? What should be their responsi bilities and what kind of training should they have? Should there be some kind of (...) accreditation or certification program to ensure that those who call themselves ethics consultants are in fact qualified to advise, consult, research, and write in health care ethics? The distinguished authors ofthese articles are persons with diverse backgrounds, interests, presumptions, and val ues. Not surprisingly, therefore, diverse responses have emerged to the questions posed. Though the book's chapters are individually authored, they are informed by the group discussions that went on during active workshop sessions, and by knowledge of the contributions of others. All of the chapters meaningfully represent their consensus. This is not to say that there were no disagreements regarding specific details, but rather that there were no fundamental objections on the book's basic content among a panel of authors who share basic premises regarding the role, responsibilities, education, and certifica tion of health care ethics consultants. (shrink)

In this paper I attempt to address what appears to be a novel theoretical and practical problem concerning physician-assisted suicide (PAS). This problem arises out of a newly created set of circumstances in which persons are hospitalized in jurisdictions where PAS, though now legally available to patients, remains morally contentious. When moral disagreements over PAS come to divide physicians, patients, and family members, it is quite likely they will today find their way to the hospital’s consulting ethicist, a member of (...) an emerging group of professionals charged with the responsibility (so we are told) of resolving moral conflict in the clinic. What can or should an ethics consultant do to fulfill this mandate in such circumstances? I argue that the now predominant conception of clinical ethics consultation is importantly deficient in that it provides no final guidance to ethicists on how they should respond in such cases. The ethicist may only recommend—or assist others to reach—solutions to moral disagreements falling within the limits of established norms. Since the normative landscape of PAS appears to be changing, whether it falls within these limits is unsettled. I conclude that the accepted goals of ethics consultation require a revised and expanded conception of the ethicist's role in cases involving PAS. I close by outlining what that revised understanding would look like and the further questions it raises. (shrink)

Religions often operate as comprehensive worldviews, attempting to answer the deepest existential questions that human beings can ask: Who am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going after I die? How should I live? Often ethical systems are embedded and justified within these broader narratives. Inevitably, the clinical ethics consultant will encounter and engage with religiously based ethical systems. In this issue, the authors reflect seriously and deeply on the implications of such engagement.

Clinical ethics consultation is largely outside the scope of regulation and oversight, despite its importance. For decades, the bioethics community has been unable to reach a consensus on whether there should be accountability in this work, as there is for other clinical activities that influence the care of patients. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, the primary society of bioethicists and scholars in the medical humanities and the organizational home for individuals who perform CEC in the United States, (...) has initiated a two‐step quality attestation process as a means to assess clinical ethics consultants and help identify individuals who are qualified to perform this role. This article describes the process. (shrink)

The system of clinical ethics committees (CECs) in the United Kingdom is based on goodwill. No formal requirements exist as to constitution, membership, range of expertise or the status of their recommendations. Healthcare professionals are not obliged to use CECs where they exist, nor to follow any advice received. In addition, the make-up of CECs suggests that ethics itself may be under-represented. In most cases, there is one member with a training in ethics – the rest are (...) healthcare professionals or administrators, although a lawyer is generally also included in the membership. This begs the question as whether CECs can ‘do ethics’, as well whether or not they can take seriously the requirements of due process, formal justice and human rights. Moreover, the role of the patient in this system is opaque. (shrink)

Clinical bioethics is big business. There are now hundreds of people who bioethics in community and university hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation and home care settings, and some who play the role of clinical ethics consultant to transplant teams, managed care companies, and genetic testing firms. Still, there is as much speculation about what clinically active bioethicists actually do as there was ten years ago. Various commentators have pondered the need for training standards, credentials, exams, and malpractice insurance (...) for ethicists engaged in clinical consultation. Much of the discussion seems to accept an implicit presumption that all clinical ethics consultation practices look pretty much alike. But is this accurate? What do clinical ethicists do, how and where do they do it, and what kind of clinical ethics is useful in the hospital and in other settings? (shrink)

The increase of scandals in the business sector is forcing many companies to examine their corporate ethical behavior with a view toward rebuilding their corporate value system. This article describes how value-system reconstruction must proceed in a company and demonstrates that corporate ethics can only become plausible if based on a corporate ethical ethos. It outlines a five-step development plan of management strategies toward rebuilding a company's value system on this corporate ethos through: corporate policy and strategy reformulation; corporate (...) ethical code promulgation and value-statement formulation; management ethical training and corporate ethical education; and corporate ethical performance evaluation. The role of the corporate ethical consultant is also outlined to illustrate how corporate ethical consulting can provide the specialized services designed to insure an enduring management ethical upgrading and to improve a company's corporate ethical performance record. The discussion indicates how corporate ethical consulting promotes good business through its capacity to deliver industry credibility and company security. (shrink)

Background and aimsFew Polish hospitals have Hospital Ethics Committee (HECs) and the services are not always adequate. In this situation, the role of HECs, in providing, among others, ethical advice on the discontinuation of persistent therapies, may be taken over by other entities. The aim of our research was to investigate, how often and on what issues hospital chaplains are asked for ethical advice in reaching difficult medical decisions.MethodsA survey of 100 Roman Catholic chaplains was conducted, that is, (...) at least 10% of all chaplains currently working in Polish hospitals.ResultsOf the participants, 29% confirmed receiving requests for advice in making a morally difficult medical decision. Receiving this type of request was not conditional on the place of their service, duration of their pastoral mission or HEC membership. The largest group of chaplains (21%) encounter questions concerning the ethical dilemmas associated with discontinuing persistent therapy. Patients and their families most often raise issues related to the methods of birth control, and the medical staff raise the issue of termination of pregnancy—as reported by 9% and 15% of chaplains, respectively. Most of the chaplains asked for help (79%) experience a deficit of specialist knowledge in the area of medicine or ethics.ConclusionsIn order to improve the quality of ethical consultations in Polish hospitals, in addition to further development of HECs, it is postulated to develop a system for bioethical education of chaplains. (shrink)

Much has been written about the importance of narrative in teaching ethics and humanities to medical students and residents, as well as the value of narratives in clinical care. Relatively little has been said about the essential role of narrative in bioethics consultations. For most consults, the interpretation of narratives is the central moral feature, and the ethics consultant is inevitably one of the narrators. In a recent consult in which I participated, at least three narratives (...) were in play. The medical record itself was a narrative, or really, a variety of narratives. A second distinct narrative was the story of why this case had come to be categorized as an ethical concern for the medical team. A third narrative was the tentative sketch running through my mind as a consultant‐partly factual, partly anticipatory and conjectural, inevitably personal‐about what was going on here. (shrink)

Much has been written about the role of hospital ethics committees. Ethics committees may have begun in Seattle in the early 1960s, but they were reified in. New Jersey by the Quinlan Court in the 1970s and thrived in the national bioethics movement of the 1980s.In this flurry of ethics activity, several new forms of ethics committees have evolved. New forms of ethics committees include patient care-oriented ethics committees. Many ethicists are familiar with (...) mission-oriented ethics committees. Such committees have taken on new roles, and Include PROs, IPCs, and HREAPs. In general, these committees are regulatory in nature and may often rely on rules and regulations to assess patient cases, research protocols, and health professional practices. (shrink)

Considerable debate has occurred about the proper role of philosophers when offering ethics consultations. Some argue that only physicians or clinical experienced personnel should offer ethics consultations in the clinical setting. Others argue still further that philosophers are ill-equipped to offer such advice, since to do so rests on no social warrant, and violates the abstract and neutral nature of the discipline itself.I argue that philosophers not only can offer such consultations but ought to. To be a (...) bystander when one's discipline does offer insights and methods of value discernment is pusillanimous. But this position requires a view of clinical medical ethics as one that arises out of the clinical practice of medicine, and not just from an application of general ethical principles to the practice of medicine. I conclude with some skills that trained philosophers can bring to the consultation service, and note that all consultations are in the form of recommendations that the patient, family, and physician are still free to accept or reject. Philosophers in the clinical setting do not make decisions. (shrink)

BackgroundEthics consult services are well established, but often remain underutilized. Our aim was to identify the barriers and perceptions of the Ethics consult service for physicians, advance practice providers (APPs), and nurses at our urban academic medical center which might contribute to underutilization.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional single-health system, anonymous written online survey, which was developed by the UCSD Health Clinical Ethics Committee and distributed by Survey Monkey. We compare responses between physicians, APPs, and nurses using standard parametric and (...) non-parametric statistical methods. Satisfaction with ethics consult and likelihood of calling Ethics service again were assessed using a 0–100 scale using a 5-likert response structured (0 being “not helpful at all” to 100 being “extremely helpful”) and results presented using box plots and interquartile ranges (IQR).ResultsFrom January to July 2019, approximately 3800 surveys were sent to all physicians, APPs and nurses with a return rate of 5.5—10%. Although the majority of respondents had encountered an ethical dilemma (85–92.1%) only approximately half had ever requested an Ethics consult. The primary reason for physicians never having requested a consult was that they never felt the need for help (41%). For APPs the primary reasons were not knowing an Ethics consult service was available (33.3%) or not knowing how to contact Ethics (27.8%). For nurses, it was not knowing how to contact the Ethics consult service (30.8%) or not feeling the need for help (26.2%). The median satisfaction score (IQR) for Ethics consult services rated on a 0–100 scale, from physicians was 76 (29), for AAPs 89 (49), and nurses 70 (40) (p = 0.62). The median (IQR) of likelihood of consulting Ethics in the future also on a 0–100 scale was 71 (47) for physicians, 69 (45) for APPs, and 61 (45) for nurses (p = 0.79). APP’s and nurses were significantly more likely than physicians to believe that the team did not act on the Ethics consult’s recommendations.ConclusionsBased on the results presented, we were able to identify actionable steps to better engage healthcare providers—and in particular APPs and nurses—and scale up institutional educational efforts to increase awareness of the role of the Ethics consult service at our institution. Actionable steps included implementing a system of ongoing feedback that is critical for the sustainability of the Ethics service role. We hope this project can serve as a blueprint for other hospital-based Ethics consult services to improve the quality of their programs. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

This commentary reflects on twelve stories of participants in clinical ethics consultations from the perspective of family members, some of whom are ethics consultants, and healthcare professionals. Together they reveal expectations of ethics consultations and suggest descriptions of the service. Some common themes emerge, including the role of the clinical ethics consultant in navigating complex situations, assuring all stake-holder voices are heard, attending to moral distress, addressing issues that seem beyond medical practice, and being (...) accessible. They are almost uniformly positive about the experience, with criticism primarily about lack of access to the service. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Clinical Ethics Consult: Transforming Ambivalence to ActionEve MakoffAs palliative care practitioners, we’re good at diffusing explosive family dynamics and holding space for patients and families in emotional crises. We also help everyone involved with the care of seriously ill patients focus on what is best based on the values of the most important person in the room; the one in the hospital bed. So, when we call (...) for a bioethics consultation from a clinical ethicist, it’s because something has gotten stuck or, perhaps, we could benefit from a reframe—or a new set of eyes to ground the scenario or the emotional miasma that tends to linger and drift when on the cusp between life and death.In the 1990s, at least in my medical school and residency programs, medical ethicists in the hospital were not often a part of direct patient care. They were like philosophers, available to curbside and advise on ethically murky cases but at a distance from the trenches. These wise, generally older men with white beards parceled out all potential ethical sides of the case, leaving us to decide the best way forward. The Socratic Method1 was often employed, so we were left to grapple with the ambiguity that exists in most issues about what’s right or wrong. It sometimes felt frustrating but now I realize the importance of honing the skill of tolerating the feeling of not immediately knowing the best way to proceed in the practice of medicine. As it turned out, by the time I started practicing palliative care in 2013 and began to regularly collaborate with what was then our clinical ethics partners in care, our ethics director Dr. F was also a wise older man with a white beard. But he and the rest of his (non-male, un-bearded) team didn’t have that untouchable ivory tower kind of protection around them. They were accessible. They dug into the hard stuff right alongside us when they were asked to get involved.One time when I consulted ethics on a case, I’d been navigating a switch from practicing internal medicine to palliative care. At the time I was dealing with personal ambivalence—feeling mired in the heaviness that infused my workdays and unsure if I could take it. It turned out that a clinical consultation, and a family meeting with Dr. F, helped in more ways than one.That day, we gathered in the medical intensive care unit conference room. It doubled as a storage closet, so the team, including our patient’s family, dragged in chairs and stools and crowded around the oblong melamine table next to the whiteboard with half-erased arterial blood gas calculations. We hunched together to see where things stood and make some essential decisions.As we do in family meetings, we reconfirmed our roles on the team: ICU fellow, resident, and medical student. Nurses fluttered in and out as their patient care allowed. The patient’s daughter with silver-streaked hair was in attendance, as well as her son, who was slumped in his seat. Both looked sleepless and frazzled. And finally, Dr. F and myself—clinical ethicist and palliative care doctor—gathered. Dr. F then took the lead, announcing our intention to come together and discuss what was best for our patient—their mother. Dr. F then requested a medical update from the ICU team.“Mrs. Lyons is on a ventilator. She’s sedated and medicated for pain. But her organs aren’t doing well. She’s not getting better,” the resident read off of his white paper of scribbles. [End Page 12]Suspended between her life and her death, Mrs. Lyons lay unperturbed but unreachable, and her family was agonizing about what to do. For days our palliative team had discussed the options with the family—we could cut back on the medications and try to wake her up, knowing she’d likely have considerable pain, and to what end? We could reconsider that surgery for her infected bowels, but she’d likely not survive.Or we could let her go—discontinue the ventilator and likely let her die.They could not decide... (shrink)

BackgroundThis study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016–2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS).MethodsWe performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative (...) evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU’s activities and analyzed by framework analysis.ResultsQuantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs.ConclusionsOur findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU’s ethics consultation service within the local context. (shrink)

Against the background assumptions that knowing what clinical ethics consultation represents to those with whom ethics consultants work most closely is a necessary component for being responsible in the practice of ethics consultation, and the complexities of soliciting and understanding colleague evaluations require another inherent responsibility for the methods by which ethics consultations are evaluated, in this article we report our experience soliciting, analyzing, and trying to understand retrospective evaluations of our Clinical Ethics Consultation Service. (...) These evaluations were collected through a quality assessment effort at our institution. Drawing from the qualitative elements of our survey instrument, we describe unexpected variations among the requests for ethics consultation and the retrospective reports from those colleagues making the requests. Focusing on just one aspect – the reason for request – raised several core questions about how we should evaluate those retrospective reports, what could be learned from the differences that we were now encountering, and what we could learn about the process of evaluating our practices. Working through these questions, we suggest several issues to consider in ongoing efforts to describe and evaluate clinical ethics consultation: the role of time and memory in evaluating retrospective evaluations, the importance of attending to the language of moral shift or disruption with which our colleagues describe their experiences, and how to understand the role of ethics consultation in creating ‘moral space’ for colleagues to process their moral experiences. (shrink)

In Rethinking Applied Ethics Today, this paper would like to advance the concept of Ethics Consulting as a means of applying Applied Ethics in the practice of Bioethics. Applied Ethics is frequently described as a discipline of Philosophy that concerns itself with the application of moral theories such as deontology andutilitarianism to real world dilemmas. These applications however often remain restricted to the academic world and rarely reach the actual practice of those in urgent need of (...) ethical guidance. Ethics Consulting is an emerging concept in the field of Applied Ethics, but has already shown great potential in extending the gains of academic thought to everyday deliberations on ethical dilemmas. Connected to the Coherence and Common-Morality Theories in Bioethics, the focusof Ethics Consulting has since the mid-1980’s shifted from issues of content to those of process - from what the ethicist knows to what the ethicist does or enable. This shift not only remodelled the ethicist’s role to that of a facilitator in an inherently social process of moral inquiry, but also added the responsibility of keeping moral reflective spaces open where sound and shared processes of ethical deliberation can take place. Applying these developments in the Namibian context has already proved to be of great value to patients and Medical Aid Funds and also holds great potential in addressing the ethical demands placed on medical practitioners and clinics. (shrink)

At the outset of this chapter, I want to echo the praise offered by all of the contributors to this volume for Finder’s outstanding, thoughtful and self-critical narrative of the case of 83 year old Mrs. Hamadani and her fiercely devoted children. The brocade account is carefully woven, like a fine Persian tapestry, to convey the rich complexity of an actual ethics consultation as it transpires not over hours, but rather over days, weeks, months and even, as in this (...) case, years. Mrs. Hamadani’s narrative so told is replete with questions worthy of critical reflection. What is an appropriate role for ethics consultation in healthcare? How can an autonomy-centric culture accommodate community-centric cultural difference? How can or should the voice of the patient be heard when she cannot speak for herself and the much louder and anguished voices of others demand to be heard? What are the bounds of acceptable medical treatment and how should care teams respond when patient or family demands threaten to push care givers to cross those bounds? What is an appropriate response for ethics consultants when they are asked to take over a case or prevent a colleague from interacting with an unwilling family? Do the motivations of patients, family, or members of the care team in calling ethics consultants necessarily shape the consultant’s role? And so the list goes on, as the variety of commentaries which comprise the majority of this volume, as well as the multitude of discussions that you, the readers, will inevitably have with colleagues, students, and friends make abundantly clear. (shrink)

The debate and implementation of Clinical Ethics Consultation is still in its beginnings in Europe and the issue of the patient's perspective has been neglected so far, especially at the theoretical and methodological level. At the practical level, recommendations about the involvement of the patient or his/her relatives are missing, reflecting the general lack of quality and practice standards in CEC. Balance of perspectives is a challenge in any interpersonal consultation, which has led to great efforts to develop “technical”approaches, (...) e.g., in psychological counseling or psychotherapeutic treatment. In ethics, unbalance or partiality is a matter of justice and has provoked significant theoretical work, also relevant for practical medical ethics. A lack of balance seems to be particularly serious in those situations, where ethical conflict is triggering a consultation and where the “parties” involved may try to persuade the consultant that their particular opinion is the most convincing; but to our knowledge the connection between patient/relatives involvement and balance has not yet been discussed in the context of CEC. Central questions of access and involvement of the patient and his/her relatives will be analysed and discussed regarding the challenge of balance and the adequate role or attitude of a Clinical Ethics Consultant. It is argued that the Clinical Ethics Consultant should have a methodological awareness regarding the concepts of “neutrality” versus “advocacy” in his/her role and try to achieve a balanced procedure that allows for an optimum of change of perspectives. The argumentation is developed along the narrative of a real case study. Recommendations concerning the involvement of the patient or the relatives are formulated for the practice of CEC. (shrink)

In the continuing debate about the role of the Clinical Ethics Consultant in performing clinical ethics consultations, it is often assumed that consultants should operate within ethical and legal standards. Recent scholarship has focused primarily on clarifying the consultant's role with respect to the ethical standards that serve as parameters of consulting. In the following, however, I wish to address the question of how the ethics consultant should weigh legal standards and, more (...) broadly, how consultants might weigh authoritative directives, whether legal, institutional, or professional, against other normative considerations. I argue that consultants should reject the view that authoritative directives carry exclusionary reason for actions and, further, ethicists should interpret directives as lacking any moral weight qua authoritative directive. I then identify both implications and limitations of this view with respect to the evolving role of the ethics consultant in an institutional setting, and in doing so propose the kinds of considerations the ethicist should weigh when presented with an authoritative directive. (shrink)

This paper addresses the need for, and ultimately proposes, an educational framework to develop competencies in attending to ethical issues in mental health and substance use health (MHSUH) in healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC). Given the prevalence and stigma associated with MHSUH, it is crucial for healthcare ethicists to approach such matters skillfully. A literature review was conducted in the areas of bioethics, health professions education, and stigma studies, followed by quality improvement interviews with content experts to gather feedback on (...) the framework’s strengths, limitations, and anticipated utility. The proposed framework describes three key concepts: first, integrating self-reflexive practices into formal, informal, and hidden curricula; second, embedding structural humility into teaching methods and contexts of learning; and third, striking a balance between critical consciousness and compassion in dialogue. The proposed educational framework has the potential to help HCEC learners enhance their understanding and awareness of ethical issues related to structural stigma and MHSUH. Moreover, context-specific learning, particularly in MHSUH, can play a significant role in promoting competency-building among healthcare ethicists, allowing them to address issues of social justice effectively in their practice. Further dialogue is encouraged within the healthcare ethics community to further develop the concepts described in this framework. (shrink)

Moral conflicts over medical treatment that are the result of differences in fundamental moral commitments of the stakeholders, including religiously grounded commitments, can present difficult challenges for clinical ethics consultants. This article begins with a case example that poses such a conflict, then examines how consultants might use different approaches to clinical ethics consultation in an effort to facilitate the resolution of conflicts of this kind. Among the approaches considered are the authoritarian approach, the pure consensus approach, and (...) the ethics facilitation approach described in the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation report of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, as well as a patient advocate approach, a clinician advocate approach, and an institutional advocate approach. The article identifies clear limitations to each of these approaches. An analysis of the introductory case illustrates those limitations, and the article concludes that deep-seated conflicts of this kind may reveal inescapable limits of current approaches to clinical ethics consultation. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) are not moral authorities. Standardization of CECs’ professional role does not confer upon them moral authority. Certification of particular CECs does not confer upon them moral authority (nor does it reflect such authority). Or, so we will argue. This article offers a distinctly Orthodox Christian response to those who claim that CECs—or any other academically trained bioethicist—retain moral authority (i.e., an authority to know and recommend the right course of action). This article proceeds in (...) three parts. First, we discuss recent movements toward the certification of CECs in the United States, focusing primarily on proposals and programs put forth by the American Society for Humanities and Bioethics (ASBH). Second, we outline two secular reasons to be concerned about the relevant trends toward certification. For one thing, certification is currently being advanced via political dominance, rather than gaining authority by reliance on rigorous philosophical argument or reason. For another, the trends operate on the assumption that there exists a secular, content-full, canonical, morality. There is no such morality. Next, we argue that Orthodox Christians should resist the current trends toward certification of CECs. Specifically, we unpack ways in which the ASBH’s certification program (and those like it) conflict with Orthodox claims about moral authority and the moral life more generally. We conclude that Orthodox Christians should resist the current certification trends. (shrink)

In most children’s hospitals, there are very few ethics consultations, even though there are many ethically complex cases. We hypothesize that the reason for this may be that hospitals develop different mechanisms to address ethical issues and that many of these mechanisms are closer in spirit to the goals of the pioneers of clinical ethics than is the mechanism of a formal ethics consultation. To show how this is true, we first review the history of collaboration between (...) philosophers and physicians about clinical dilemmas. Then, as a case-study, we describe the different venues that have developed at one children’s hospital to address ethical issues. At our hospital, there are nine different venues in which ethical issues are regularly and explicitly addressed. They are ethics committee meetings, Nursing Ethics Forum, ethics Brown Bag workshops, PICU ethics rounds, Grand Rounds, NICU Comprehensive Care Rounds, Palliative Care Team case conferences, multidisciplinary consults in Fetal Health Center, and ethics consultations. In our hospital, ethics consults account for only a tiny percentage of ethics discussions. We suspect that most hospitals have multiple and varied venues for ethics discussions. We hope this case study will stimulate research in other hospitals analyzing the various ways in which ethicists and ethics committees can build an ethical environment in hospitals. Such research might suggest that ethicists need to develop a different set of “core competencies” than the ones that are needed to do ethics consultations. Instead, they should focus on their skills in creating multiple “moral spaces” in which regular and ongoing discussion of ethical issues would take place. A successful ethicist would empower everyone in the hospital to speak up about the values that they believe are central to respectful, collaborative practice and patient care. Such a role is closer to what the first hospital philosophers set out to do than in the role of the typical hospital ethics consultant today. (shrink)

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, several scholars wrote on the topic of ethics expertise in clinical ethics consultation. The articles in this issue exemplified what we consider to be two troubling trends in the quest to articulate a unique expertise for clinical ethicists. The first trend, exemplified in the work of Lisa Rasmussen, is an attempt to define a role for clinical ethicists that denies they have ethics expertise. Rasmussen cites (...) the dependence of ethical expertise on irresolvable meta-ethical debates as the reason for this move. We argue against this deflationary strategy because it ends up smuggling in meta-ethical assumptions it claims to avoid. Specifically, we critique Rasmussen’s distinction between the ethical and normative features of clinical ethics cases. The second trend, exemplified in the work of Dien Ho, also attempts to avoid meta-ethics. However, unlike Rasmussen, Ho tries to articulate a notion of ethics expertise that does not rely upon meta-ethics. Specifically, we critique Ho’s attempts to explain how clinical ethicists can resolve moral disputes using what he calls the “Default Principle” and “arguments by parity.” We show that these strategies do not work unless those with the moral disagreement already share certain meta-ethical assumptions. Ultimately, we argue that the two trends of attempting to avoid meta-ethics by denying that clinical ethicists have ethics expertise, and attempting to articulate how ethics expertise can be used to resolve disputes without meta-ethics both fail because they do not, in fact, avoid doing meta-ethics. We conclude that these trends detract from what clinical ethics consultation was founded to do and ought to still be doing—provide moral guidance, which requires ethics expertise, and engagement with meta-ethics. To speak of ethicists without ethics expertise leaves their role in the clinic dangerously unclear and unjustified. (shrink)

Originally published in 1999, this classic textbook includes twenty-six cases with commentary and bibliographic resources designed especially for medical students and the training of ethics consultants. The majority of the cases reflect the day-to-day moral struggles within the walls of hospitals typically described as community hospitals; as a result, the cases do not focus on esoteric, high-tech dilemmas--viz., genetic engineering or experimental protocols--but rather on fundamental problems that are pervasive in basic healthcare delivery in the United States: where to (...) send a frail, elderly patient who refuses to go to a nursing home; what role the family should play in making a treatment decision; what a hospital should do when it is getting stuck with too many unpaid bills. This thoroughly revised and updated second edition includes thirteen new cases, five of which are designated as "skill builder" cases aimed specifically for those participants in the Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics' web-based instructional program. This edition has also been restructured for teachability, and will feature reformatted and revised commentaries. (shrink)

Demonstrating value is an ongoing process and requirement for institutional survival for ethics programs. Although our ethics program has significantly increased our ethics consultation volume and maintains a robust database that tracks ethics consultation data, these data regarding ethics consultations alone do not accurately represent the program’s overall activities and value to the institution. The roles and responsibilities of clinical ethicists extend beyond clinical ethics consultation, and there are many other ways that clinical ethicists (...) contribute and add value to their institutions. This article describes our ethics program’s early efforts to systematically track ethics program activities outside of ethics consultations as a way to demonstrate additional value to the institution that goes beyond ethics consultation. By systematically tracking activities such as internal ethics education sessions, conference presentations, publications, grants, committee/policy work, and other activities, our ethics program has been able to gather substantial quantitative data that highlight our program’s numerous activities and outreach, both within and outside the institution, that provide additional value to the institution beyond our ethical consultation activities. (shrink)

The debate about what constitutes the discipline of ethics and who qualifies as an ethics consultant is linked unavoidably to a debate that is potentiated by the reality of a rapidly changing and high-stakes health care consultation marketplace. Who we are and what we can offer to the moral gesture that is medicine is shaped by our fundamental understanding of the place of expert knowledge in the transformation of social reality. The struggle for self-definition is particularly freighted (...) since clinical ethics consultation aspires to be more than academic contemplation. Two recent books (Ethics Consultation by John La Puma and David Schiedermayer and The Health Care Ethics Consultant: A Practical Guide, edited by Francoise Baylis) exemplify the two most popular but most widely divergent positions on these issues. We argue that while useful, neither book addresses fully the particular and distinct role of the professional ethicist. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultation not only interprets moral issues at the bedside and is not restricted to giving support for the “technical” handling of these moral issues, but it has to substantively address moral values, norms, and conflicts in the process of discussing cases and problems. We call this the normative dimension and use normative in the sense of embracing moral values and convictions of persons and groups, norms, and relevant professional and ethical guidelines as well as legal frameworks. The (...) roles and activities of the consultant as a person and the quality of CEC as a process are discussed in the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities’ Core Competences for Healthcare Ethics Consultation. (shrink)

In the rapidly evolving healthcare environment, perhaps no role is in greater flux and redefinition than that of the clinical bioethicist. The discussion of ethics consultation in the bioethics literature has moved from an ambiguous concern regarding its proper place in the clinical milieu to the more provocative question of which methods and theories should best characterize the intellectual and practical work it claims to do. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities addressed these concerns in its 1998 (...) report, CoreCompetenciesforHealthCareEthicsConsultation. The report tries to answer the question as to what disciplinary training, background experience, and levels of knowledge in ethics the clinical ethics consultant should have, and what specific skills and character traits the clinical ethics consultant should cultivate. In addition to acquiring knowledge of common bioethical issues, theoretical concepts in ethical theory and moral reasoning, and health-related law and policy, the report also recommends that ethics consultants demonstrate knowledge of the health beliefs and perspectives of patients and healthcare providers. In our opinion, this recommendation underscores a crucial aspect of the practice of ethics consultation in the increasingly multicultural settings of healthcare institutions. Clearly, the dynamic of American life and culture is permeated with diversity and variety as new groups suffuse their own beliefs and faith perspectives into the health sector. New immigrant groups force society to question traditional healthcare practices and to accommodate changing medical needs. (shrink)

Increasing complexities facing physicians negotiating the bedside decision continue to fuel the debate over who is the appropriate party to offer ethics consults, should one be needed, during the decision-making process. Some very good arguments have been put forth on behalf of clinical ethicists as being the proper and best party to engage in ethics consultations. However, serious questions remain about the role of the clinical ethicist and his ability to provide the necessary level of objectivity called (...) for in an ethics consult.I argue that the clinician's professional psyche, or mode of thinking as a professional, leaves him little room to maneuver as an objective and detached third party ethics consultant. Several factors are cited and discussed that greatly influence the analyses applied to a case problem by physicians. The most formidable of these factors are habits and the practice of defensive medicine. I conclude that clinical ethicists are less suited for the overall tasks required of an objective consultant in medical cases that appear to involve insurmountable ethical issues. (shrink)

The role of research ethics consultants in biomedical research has increased to the point that they have an advisory capacity at all research institutes. For such professionals, we have established an educational system, which includes teaching materials, training methods, and nationwide educational workshops. These workshops have served to examine the developed system’s usefulness and to provide realistic training for consultant candidates. In addition, we have used the current workshop to encourage clinical research investigators to participate. Subsequently, we (...) examined its usefulness as an opportunity to provide exposure to research ethics. In October 2019, we held a 1-day pilot workshop in Tokushima, Japan, which included a basic lecture in research ethics. During the lecture, two sets of materials were used for case discussion: case 1, covering issues related to a clinical trial, and case 2, covering issues related to human biological specimens. At the end of the workshop, a 30-item self-reporting anonymous questionnaire was provided. Of the 13 total participants, 9 were clinical research investigators and related personnel, while 6 had no direct intention to act as consultants. Respondents indicated that case 2 was more difficult than case 1. However, both cases were generally accepted as educational materials; thus, satisfaction was expressed in relation to both. As the evaluations of the cases were generally positive, we will further examine the usefulness of participation in the workshop in the cultivation of research ethics in the investigator community. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Side Stepping The Issues: Disappointment With An Ethics Consult For A Medically High Risk PatientBrent R. CarrMonths of severe symptoms were a blur—hour after hour of suffering. Sleep is her only respite. Her 5-word diagnosis, “treatment-refractory depression with anxious distress,” seemed too orderly, like a flattened 2-dimensional strip of ribbon that simply ironed out all the chaos and confused distress roiling within her. Anyone entering the psychiatric unit (...) early in the morning could hear her near-breathless sobbing, calling for nursing help, repeatedly pleading to anyone who would listen that she was dying. By afternoon, her wheelchair would be situated off to one side of the milieu to prevent agitation of other [End Page 13] patients. From there, she would summon them with small gestures or brief, incessant outbursts to save her, that her body was decaying, withering before them. Such is the torment of nihilistic delusions. She flailed her arms, rocking back and forth, lamenting that no one would help. Although she possessed full leg strength, she refused to stand from the wheelchair, fearing collapse. These distressed pleas were sustained well past each dinner, the anguish echoing from her room, and during her evening shower. Sometimes a pillow-muffled sigh and silence would disclose when her torments became engulfed in sleep.Two years prior, she had a similar episode that lasted almost 3-years. It had failed to respond to months of psychotherapy and more than 15 medication trials. That time, she had cried with happiness after the mental illness went into full remission after only a three-week course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). She described this as her miracle. But as miraculous as the ECT was for her, it was problematic. She is a high-risk patient with ongoing hypertension and Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome, a condition that leads to an inappropriately fast pulse from aberrant electrical pathways in the heart. During the final week of ECT, she experienced a marked blood pressure surge that led to severe cardiac pathology—Takatsubo’s cardiomyopathy. This is also known as “stress cardiomyopathy” or “broken heart syndrome,” befitting the vexed emotional state she had been in. The cardiomyopathy resembled a myocardial infarct, and it took several months for her to fully recover. Unfortunately, this prevented the use of ECT as a relapse prevention treatment. By one-year post-ECT, her systolic left ventricular dysfunction had resolved, and her ejection fraction (the heart’s pumping efficiency) had normalized.Now, once again, she was treatment-resistant, and ECT was the treatment of choice. The risk stratification for ECT encompassed her prior Takatsubo’s cardiomyopathy, which has a small but known chance for recurrence. This made her a high-risk patient. This risk was convoluted even more by her depression-induced psychosis, wherein she believed that she was dying, that meds were poisoning her, and that ECT would kill her from a heart attack. Before the psychiatric team consulted the ECT service, a mental health court had already ruled regarding her lack of capacity for her medical decisions. The court had authorized her husband as her proxy with authority to consent for her medical care, including for ECT. My role in this case was as the ECT proceduralist from the neuromodulation service who had been consulted by the primary team. The husband was an informed individual and signed consent for ECT. These events all coincided with the primary attending’s departure on scheduled leave. There was now a new covering attending.The resident psychiatrist was apprehensive about ECT and deliberated that the patient was at least able to identify potential risks of ECT—even if exacerbated by a nihilistic delusion. The resident speculated that perhaps the patient should at least be able to refuse ECT, given her previous cardiomyopathy. The newly arrived attending deferred a response regarding her concern and stated it had already been decided by the “team.” This amplified doubt. The medical students sensed the resident’s apprehension and felt confused about whether the patient should receive ECT or not. This dynamic quickly spilled over into nursing discussions, where some were now hesitating about the decision. The cohesiveness of the psychiatry treatment team was compromised... (shrink)

In the process of professionalization, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has emphasized process and knowledge as core competencies for clinical ethics consultants; however, the credentialing program launched in 2018 fails to address both pillars. The inadequacy of this program recalls earlier critiques of the professionalization effort made by Giles R. Scofield and H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.. Both argue that ethics consultation is not a profession and the effort to professionalize is motivated by self-interest. One argument (...) they offer against professionalization is that ethics consultants lack normative expertise. Although the question of expertise cannot be resolved completely, the accusation of self-interest can be addressed. Underlying these critiques is a concern for hubris, which can be addressed in certification and the vetting of candidates. Drawing on the virtue ethics literature of Alasdair MacIntyre and Edmund D. Pellegrino, I argue that medicine is a moral community in which ethics consultants are moral agents with a duty to foster the virtue of humility (or what Pellegrino and Thomasma call self-effacement). The implications of this argument include a requirement for self-reflection in one’s role as a moral agent and reflection on one’s progress toward developing or deepening virtuous engagement with the moral community of medicine. I recommend that professionalization of clinical ethics consultants include a self-reflective narrative component in the initial certification and ongoing renewal of certification where clinical ethics consultants address the emotional dimensions of their work as well as their own moral development. Adopting a teleological view of ethics consultation and incorporating narratives that work toward that purpose will mitigate the self-interest and hubris of the professionalization project. (shrink)

A case of conflict in pediatric end-of-life decision making is presented to compare the complementary roles of clinical ethics consultants and palliative care specialists. The progression of the case illustrates the differing structures, goals, and methods of the majority of such teams. The strengths of each of consultation are emphasized. Particularly in centers where palliative care services are not available, it can be important for careproviders and clinical ethics consultants to focus on alliance-building and a longitudinal relationship with (...) patients and families. (shrink)

With “The Zadeh Scenario,” Finder offers us a gift…a rich and thoughtful first-person account of the gradual unfolding of a specific ethics consultation conducted by a specific ethics consultant in a specific context. This is not your average case report, stripped to the bare facts and devoid of the ambiguity of real-time human interactions. It’s also not simply an example of thick description, offering the reader a detailed account of the context out of which an abstract ethical (...) dilemma has emerged, with the ethics consultant describing all from a distance, above the fray. What Finder offers and models for us instead is something entirely new and different. He offers us a case narrative into which he has chosen to place himself squarely and explicitly. And in the spirit of “peer review” he has generously revealed his own inner dialogue in response to twists and turns in the case, sharing his personal reflections as events unfolded, and his musings about various actions he took and choices he made in his role. By inviting us to ponder his story about the story of the case, he generously extends a gift to us: the opportunity to reflect on his—and therefore our own—consultation practice, and the opportunity to try a new kind of peer review. (shrink)

The nature, possibility, and implications of ethics expertise in general and of bioethics expertise in particular has been the focus of extensive debate for over thirty years. What is ethics expertise and what does it enable experts to do? Knowing what ethics expertise is can help answer another important question: What, if anything, makes a claim of expertise legitimate? In other words, how does someone earn the appellation “ethics expert?” There remains deep disagreement on whether (...) class='Hi'>ethics expertise is possible, and if so, what constitutes such expertise and what it entails and legitimates. Discussion of bioethics expertise has become particularly important given the growing presence of bioethicists in the clinical setting as well as efforts to professionalize bioethics through codes of ethics and certification efforts. Unlike in the law or in engineering, where there may be a body of knowledge that professional organizations or others have articulated as important for education and training of experts, ethics expertise admits of no such body of knowledge or required experience. Nor is there an entity seen as having the authority to articulate the necessary scope of knowledge. Questions about whether there is such a body of knowledge for particular areas within bioethics have emerged and played a central role in professionalization efforts in recent years, especially in the area of clinical ethics. (shrink)

Genome Canada has funded a research project to evaluate the usefulness of different forms of ethical analysis for assessing the moral weight of public opinion in the governance of genomics. This paper will describe a role of public consultation for ethical analysis and a contribution of ethical analysis to public consultation and the governance of genomics/biotechnology. Public consultation increases the robustness of ethical analysis with a more diverse and rich accounts experiences. Consultation must be carefully and respectfully designed to (...) generate sufficiently diverse and rich accounts of moral experiences. Since dominant groupstend to define ethical or policy issues in a manner that excludes some interests or perspectives, it is important to identify the range of interests that diverse publics hold before defining the issue and scope of a consultation. Similarly, a heavy policy focus and pressures to commercialize products risk oversimplification of the discussion and the premature foreclosure of ethical dialogue. Consequently, a significant contribution of ethical dialogue strengthened by social analysis is to consider the context and non-policy use of power to govern genomics and to sustain social debate on enduring ethical issues. (shrink)

This paper explores the relationship between teaching and consulting in clinical ethics teaching and the role of the ethics teacher in clinical decision-making. Three roles of the clinical ethics teacher are discussed and illustrated with examples from the authors' experience. Two models of the ethics consultant are contrasted, with an argument presented for the ethics consultant as decision facilitator. A concluding section points to some of the challenges of clinical ethics teaching.

Changes in health care have created a variety of new roles and opportunities for nurses in advanced practice. One of these changes is the increasing number of advanced practice nurses carrying out independent consultation. Differences in goals between business and health care may create ethical dilemmas for nurse consultants. The purpose of this article is to describe possible ethical pitfalls that nurse consultants may encounter and strategies to prevent or solve these dilemmas. Three themes related to nursing codes of (...) class='Hi'>ethics will be discussed: the duty to uphold human rights, the duty to fulfill commitments, and the duty to practice the profession competently. (shrink)

Making jokes in organizational settings can have different effects: They can be beneficial or harmful. When they are considered appropriate, they can strengthen work relationships and stimulate inter-personal and intra-organizational communication. But when they are not amusing, jokes can harm not only the joke teller but also the organization. Research about the role of jokes in business has increased in recent years, but little is known about how to study those that are made among and about business consultants. This (...) paper is a review of the book “Business Ethics and Critical Consultant Jokes” by Onno Bouwmeester who analyzes ethical transgressions of consultants by using four different research methods: Illustrations (text jokes and cartoons), interviews with consultants, joke-based surveys, and content analyses of qualitative data to reveal themes and concepts. The book can serve as a textbook for academics, scholars, and researchers in business ethics, management, and organization studies, as well as a reference guide for leaders, managers, and consultants. (shrink)