Article contents
Ethics Consultation: The Least Dangerous Profession?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
Extract
Whether ethics is too important to be left to the experts or so important that it must be is an age-old question. The emergence of clinical ethicists raises it again, as a question about professionalism. What role clinical ethicists should play in healthcare decision making – teacher, mediator, or consultant – is a question that has generated considerable debate but no consensus.
- Type
- Special Section: Ethics Consultants and Ethics Consultations
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993
References
1. Noble, CN. Ethics and experts. Hastings Center Report 1982; 12(3):7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. La Puma, J, Schiedermayer, DL. Ethics consultation: skills, roles, and training. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;114:155–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Singer, PA, Pellegrino, ED, Siegler, M. Ethics committees and consultants. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1990;1:263–7.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Larson, MS. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
5. Freidson, E. Professional Dominance. New York: Atherton, 1970.Google Scholar
6. Self, DJ, Skeel, JD. A study of the foundations of ethical decision making of clinical ethicists. Theoretical Medicine 1991;12:117–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Berlin, I. The pursuit of the ideal. In: Hardy, H, ed. The Crooked Timber of Humanity. New York: Vintage, 1992:1–19.Google Scholar
8. Jaggar, AM. Feminist ethics: projects, problems, prospects. In: Card, C, ed. Feminist Ethics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1991:78–104.Google Scholar
9. Dula, A. Toward an Afro-American perspective on bioethics. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Undersewed 1991;2:259–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Lungones, MC, Spelman, EV. Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism, and the demand for the “woman's voice”. Women's Studies International Forum 1983;6:573–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Spelman, EV. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988.Google Scholar
12. Sherwin, S. No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
13. Callahan, S. The use of emotion in ethical decision making. Hastings Center Report 1988; 18(3):9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Alderson, P. Abstract bioethics ignores human emotions. Bulletin of Medical Ethics 1991(05): 13–21.Google ScholarPubMed
15. La Puma, J. Consultation in clinical ethics – issues and questions. Western Journal of Medicine 1987;149:633–7.Google Scholar
16. Siegler, M. Defining the goals of clinical ethics consultation: a necessary step for improving quality. Quality Review Bulletin 1992;18(1):15–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Tulsky, JA, Lo, B. Ethics consultation: time to focus on patients. American Journal of Medicine 1992;92:343–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Barnard, D. Reflections of a reluctant clinical ethicist: ethics consultation and the collapse of critical distance. Theoretical Medicine 1992;13:15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Frader, JE. Political and interpersonal aspects of ethics consultation. Theoretical Medicine 1992;13:31–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Hare, RM. Medical ethics: can the moral philosopher help? In: Spicker, SF, Engelhardt, HT, eds. Philosophical Medical Ethics: Its Nature and Significance. Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, 1977:49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Kushner, T, Belliotti, RA, Buckner, D. Toward a methodology for moral decision making in medicine. Theoretical Medicine 1991;12:281–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Scofield, GR. The problem of the impaired clinical ethicist. Quality Review Bulletin 1992; 18(1):26–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Berger, PL. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Doubleday, 1967:105–71.Google Scholar
24. Parsons, T. Research with human subjects and the professional complex. Daedalus 1969;98:349.Google Scholar
25. Freidson, E. Professional Powers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986:6–16.Google Scholar
26. Freidson, E. Profession of Medicine. New York: Harper & Row, 1970:389.Google Scholar
27. Lukes, S. Power and authority. In: Bottomore, T, Nisbet, R, eds. A History of Sociological Analysis. New York: Basic Books, 1978:642.Google Scholar
28. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making Health Care Decisions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982:44–5.Google Scholar
29. Thompson, DW. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987:40–65.Google Scholar
30. Ross, JW. Case consultation: the committee or the clinical consultant? HEC Forum 1990;2:293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Callahan, D. Bioethics as a discipline. Hastings Center Studies 1973; 1(2):66–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Clouser, KD. Medical ethics: some uses, abuses, and limitations. New England Journal of Medicine 1975;293:384–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Walzer, M. Philosophy and democracy. Political Theory 1981;9:379–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Guttman, A. Democratic Education. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
35. Singer, P. How do we decide? Hastings Center Report 1982; 12(3):10.Google ScholarPubMed
36. Pellegrino, ED, Siegler, M, Singer, PA. Future directions in clinical ethics. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;2:2–9.Google ScholarPubMed
37. Elliott, C. Where ethics comes from and what to do about it. Hastings Center Report 1992;22(4):35Google Scholar
- 38
- Cited by