Clinical Ethics Consultations and the Necessity of NOT Meeting Expectations: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-20 DOI:10.1007/s10730-022-09496-6
Stuart G Finder, Virginia L Bartlett
{"title":"Clinical Ethics Consultations and the Necessity of NOT Meeting Expectations: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.","authors":"Stuart G Finder, Virginia L Bartlett","doi":"10.1007/s10730-022-09496-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9486785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09496-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation.

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
临床伦理咨询与不达预期的必要性:我从未向你承诺过玫瑰园。
临床伦理咨询师(CEC)的工作环境十分复杂,充满了多种期望。值得注意的是,其中一些是由于专业同事以及临床伦理咨询师所咨询的患者和家属的观点造成的,涉及到临床伦理咨询师如何能够、如何做或应该如何发挥作用,从而增加了临床伦理咨询师在这些特定环境中所面临的道德复杂性。我们概述了六种常见的期望:道德警察、道德平衡器、道德超级英雄、道德加速器、道德治疗师或改善者,以及道德专家。我们以伦理咨询请求的实例为框架,对每一种伦理咨询请求进行了简要说明,我们认为,虽然出于明确而实际的原因,应该抵制这些期望,但它们也为 CEC 创造了机会,使其能够阐明、教育并最终对临床伦理工作的专业要求负责。因此,认识、承认、有时甚至抵制这些期望,成为伦理咨询工作中的关键活动和责任。
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
Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach. Correction to: It's Worth What You Can Sell It for: A Survey of Employment and Compensation Models for Clinical Ethicists. Credentialing Character: A Virtue Ethics Approach to Professionalizing Healthcare Ethics Consultation Services. East-West Dialogues on the Ethics of Sex Robots. The SIA Can't Just Go with the FLO.
×
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