scholarly journals Paradigms for Clinical Ethics Consultation Practice

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK D. FOX ◽  
GLENN McGEE ◽  
ARTHUR CAPLAN

Clinical bioethics is big business. There are now hundreds of people who “do” bioethics in community and university hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation and home care settings, and some (though quite a few less) 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, “certification” 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?

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ainsley J Newson ◽  
Gerald Neitzke ◽  
Stella Reiter-Theil

BMC Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Ilse ◽  
Bernd Alt-Epping ◽  
Albrecht Günther ◽  
Jan Liman ◽  
Alfred Simon

Abstract Background The concept of clinical ethics consultation (CECs) was implemented to provide support in ethical controversies in clinical settings and are offered in at least every second hospital in Germany. Neurological disorders often require complex decision-making. The aims of this study were to determine which situations lead to CEC in neurology and to investigate the influence of the individual patient’s wishes on the recommendation. Methods Standardised CEC protocols in the years 2011 to 2017 at the University Hospitals of Goettingen and Jena were retrospectively surveyed. The contents were categorised along existing protocol templates of CEC scenarios and subsequently paraphrased and reduced to significant meanings. Results 27 CEC scenarios which were facilitated by various professional disciplines were reviewed. Stroke was the most frequent underlying condition. Nearly all patients were not able to consent. Mostly, the relatives acted as representatives or health advocates. In 67 % of cases, a sense of conflict triggered a CEC; in 33 % a sense of uncertainty was the reason for the CEC request. In 21 CEC scenarios, a recommendation was reached in consensus with all parties involved. In 59 % of cases, a decision was made to continue medical therapy. In seven cases, the patient’s wishes led to a limitation of therapy, while in just two cases this decision was made primarily relying on the patient’s best interest. In only 13 % of cases, a valid advance directive led to respective therapeutic consequences. Conclusions CEC is feasible for consensus-finding not only in conflicts, but also in situations of therapeutic uncertainty in neurology. There is a special importance of the patient’s wishes in decision-making in neurology. However, only in a few cases were advance directives precise and specific enough to have sufficient and decisive weight in therapeutic decision-making.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
Aimee Milliken ◽  
Martha Jurchak ◽  
Nicholas Sadovnikoff

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Véronique Fournier ◽  
Eirini Rari ◽  
Reidun Førde ◽  
Gerald Neitzke ◽  
Renzo Pegoraro ◽  
...  

Clinical ethics has developed significantly in Europe over the past 15 years and remains an evolving process. While sharing our experiences in different European settings, we were surprised to discover marked differences in our practice, especially regarding the position and role of patients. In this paper, we describe these differences, such as patient access to and participation or representation in ethics consults. We propose reasons to explain these differences, hypothesizing that they relate to the historic and sociocultural context of implementation of clinical ethics consultation services (Cecs), as well as the initial aims for which each structure was established. Then, we analyse those differences with common ethical arguments arising in patient involvement. We conclude that there is no unique model of best practice for patient involvement in clinical ethics, as far as Cecs reflect on how to deal with the challenging ethical issues raised by patient role and position.


1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-357
Author(s):  
Edward Rudin

Fox, McGee, and Caplan's “Paradigms for Clinical Ethics Consultation Practice”, in the Summer 1998 issue of CQ, evoked memories and an image.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-79
Author(s):  
Aleksandra E. Olszewski ◽  
Maya Scott ◽  
Arika Patneaude ◽  
Elliott M. Weiss ◽  
Aaron Wightman

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Rasmussen

A major obstacle to broad support of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) is suspicion regarding the nature of the moral expertise it claims to offer. The suspicion seems to be confirmed when the field fails to make its moral expertise explicit. In this vacuum, critics suggest the following:(1)Clinical ethics consultation's legitimacy depends on its ability to offer an expertise in moral matters.(2)Expertise in moral matters is knowledge of a singular moral truth which applies to everyone.(3)The claim that a clinical ethics consultant can offer knowledge of a singular moral truth in virtue of her professional training is absurd, false, or gravely immoral.Therefore,(4)The field is illegitimate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document