Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Clinical Ethics Consultation After God: Implications for Advocacy and Neutrality

Clinical Ethics Consultation After God: Implications for Advocacy and Neutrality In After God: Morality and Bioethics in a Secular Age, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. explores the broad implications for moral reasoning once a culture has lost a God’s-eye perspective. In this paper, I focus on the implications of Engelhardt’s views for clinical ethics consultation. I begin by examining the question of whether clinical ethics consultants (CECs) should advocate a particular viewpoint and/or process during consultations or adopt a neutral stance. I then examine the implications of Engelhardt’s views for this question. Finally, I discuss some of Engelhardt’s foundational ontological, metaphysical, meta-ethical, and epistemological commitments and how these commitments connect to his views on clinical ethics consultation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png HEC Forum Springer Journals

Clinical Ethics Consultation After God: Implications for Advocacy and Neutrality

Parker, J.
HEC Forum , Volume 30 (2) – Oct 24, 2017
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/clinical-ethics-consultation-after-god-implications-for-advocacy-and-59wq90cNve
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Philosophy; Ethics; Medical Law; Philosophy of Medicine; Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
ISSN
0956-2737
eISSN
1572-8498
DOI
10.1007/s10730-017-9340-5
pmid
29063997
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In After God: Morality and Bioethics in a Secular Age, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. explores the broad implications for moral reasoning once a culture has lost a God’s-eye perspective. In this paper, I focus on the implications of Engelhardt’s views for clinical ethics consultation. I begin by examining the question of whether clinical ethics consultants (CECs) should advocate a particular viewpoint and/or process during consultations or adopt a neutral stance. I then examine the implications of Engelhardt’s views for this question. Finally, I discuss some of Engelhardt’s foundational ontological, metaphysical, meta-ethical, and epistemological commitments and how these commitments connect to his views on clinical ethics consultation.

Journal

HEC Forum – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 24, 2017

References

  • Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics
    Craig, WL
  • After god: Morality and bioethics in a secular age
    Engelhardt, HT
  • Mediation and advocacy
    Fiester, A
  • Clinical ethics consultants: Advocates for both patients and clinicians
    Kon, AA
  • What is the role of a clinical ethics consultant?
    Kornfeld, D
  • Conflict resolution in the clinical setting: A story beyond bioethics mediation
    Morreim, H
  • A place for ethics? A place for advocacy
    Pierce, RL
  • Patient advocacy in clinical ethics consultation
    Rasmussen, LM
  • The chiaroscuro of accountability in the second edition of the core competencies for healthcare ethics consultation
    Rasmussen, L
  • Do clinical ethics consultants have a fiduciary responsibility to the patient?
    Spike, JP
  • Moral epistemology
    Zimmerman, A