The Ethics of Clinical Ethics.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1007/s10730-024-09544-3
Matthew Shea
{"title":"The Ethics of Clinical Ethics.","authors":"Matthew Shea","doi":"10.1007/s10730-024-09544-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The concept ethics defines health care ethics as a professional practice. Yet the meaning of \"ethics\" is often unclear in the theory and practice of clinical ethics. Clarity on this matter is crucial for understanding the nature of clinical ethics and for debates about the professional identity and proper role of ethicists, the sort of training and skills they should possess, and whether they have ethics expertise. This article examines two different ways the ethics of clinical ethics can be understood: Real Ethics, which consists of objective moral norms grounded in moral truth; and Conventional Ethics, which consists of conventional norms grounded in bioethical consensus. Drawing on the bioethics literature and features of professional practice, it shows that Conventional Ethics is the dominant paradigm. Then it presents a critique of Conventional Ethics, arguing that it cannot avoid the challenge of moral pluralism, it fails to address vitally important moral questions, and it is incapable of providing an essential service to the people ethicists aim to help. It ends with suggestions about how the practice of clinical ethics might overcome these problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09544-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept ethics defines health care ethics as a professional practice. Yet the meaning of "ethics" is often unclear in the theory and practice of clinical ethics. Clarity on this matter is crucial for understanding the nature of clinical ethics and for debates about the professional identity and proper role of ethicists, the sort of training and skills they should possess, and whether they have ethics expertise. This article examines two different ways the ethics of clinical ethics can be understood: Real Ethics, which consists of objective moral norms grounded in moral truth; and Conventional Ethics, which consists of conventional norms grounded in bioethical consensus. Drawing on the bioethics literature and features of professional practice, it shows that Conventional Ethics is the dominant paradigm. Then it presents a critique of Conventional Ethics, arguing that it cannot avoid the challenge of moral pluralism, it fails to address vitally important moral questions, and it is incapable of providing an essential service to the people ethicists aim to help. It ends with suggestions about how the practice of clinical ethics might overcome these problems.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床伦理学。
伦理概念将卫生保健伦理定义为一种专业实践。然而,在临床伦理学的理论和实践中,“伦理学”的含义往往是不明确的。明确这一问题对于理解临床伦理学的本质,以及关于伦理学家的职业身份和适当角色、他们应该拥有的培训和技能以及他们是否具有伦理学专业知识的辩论至关重要。本文探讨了临床伦理学的两种不同的理解方式:真正的伦理,它由建立在道德真理基础上的客观道德规范组成;传统伦理,包括基于生物伦理共识的传统规范。借鉴生物伦理学文献和专业实践的特点,表明传统伦理学是占主导地位的范式。然后,它提出了对传统伦理学的批判,认为它无法避免道德多元化的挑战,它未能解决至关重要的道德问题,它无法为伦理学家旨在帮助的人们提供必要的服务。文章最后提出了临床伦理学实践如何克服这些问题的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
What's Left of Moral Bioenhancement? Reviewing a 15-Year Debate. Surrogate Wars: The "Best Interest Values" Hierarchy & End-of-Life Conflicts with Surrogate Decision-Makers. Medical Assistance in Dying, Slippery Slopes, and Availability of Care: A Reply to Koch. Creating Barriers to Healthcare and Advance Care Planning by Requiring Hospitals to Ask Patients About Their Immigration Status. Medical-Legal Partnerships and Prevention: Caring for Unrepresented Patients Through Early Identification and Intervention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1