Center for Bioethics Papers

Document Type

Journal Article

Date of this Version

7-5-2014

Publication Source

Bioethics

Volume

29

Issue

5

Start Page

309

Last Page

315

DOI

10.1111/bioe.12115

Abstract

Internationally, there is an on-going dialogue about how to professionalize ethics consultation services (ECSs). Despite these efforts, one aspect of ECS-competence that has received scant attention is the liability of failing to adequately capture all of the relevant moral considerations in an ethics conflict. This failure carries a high price for the least powerful stakeholders in the dispute. When an ECS does not possess a sophisticated dexterity at translating what stakeholders say in a conflict into ethical concepts or principles, it runs the risk of naming one side’s claims as morally legitimate and decrying the other’s as merely self-serving. The result of this failure is that one side in a dispute is granted significantly more moral weight and authority than the other. The remedy to this problem is that ECSs learn how to expand the diagnostic moral lens they employ in clinical ethics conflicts.

Embargo Date

6-30-2017

Comments

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Weaponizing Principles: Clinical Ethics Consultations & the Plight of the Morally Vulnerable, Bioethics, 29, 5, 309-315, June 2015, which has been published in final form at dx.doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12115. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

Keywords

clinical ethics; consultation; mediation; professional standards

Share

COinS
 

Date Posted: 02 December 2016

This document has been peer reviewed.