Skip to main content
×
Home

Dealing with the Normative Dimension in Clinical Ethics Consultation

Abstract

Clinical ethics consultation (CEC) not only interprets moral issues at the bedside and is not restricted to giving support for the “technical” handling of these moral issues, but it has to substantively address moral values, norms, and conflicts in the process of discussing cases and problems. We call this the normative dimension and use normative in the sense of embracing moral values and convictions of persons and groups, norms, and relevant professional and ethical guidelines as well as legal frameworks. The roles and activities of the consultant as a person and the quality of CEC as a process are discussed in the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities’ (ASBH) Core Competences for Healthcare Ethics Consultation.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1. The article focuses on the moral norms and on norms formulated in texts such as (ethics) guidelines, rather than on legal norms.

2. American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). Core Competences for Health Care Ethics Consultation. Glenview, IL: ASBH; 1998; reprinted in: Auliso MP, Arnold RM, Youngner SJ, eds. Ethics Consultation. From Theory to Practice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2003: 165–209.

3. North M. The Secular Priests. Psychotherapists in Contemporary Society. London: Allen & Unwin; 1972.

4. Trachtman H. Bioethicist: Consultant or judge? American Journal of Bioethics; 2001:1(4): 1f; available at http://www.bioethics.net/journal/j_articles.php?aid=352.

5. Halmos P. Faith of the Counselors: A Study in the Theory and Practice of Social Work and Psychotherapy. New York: Schocken; 1970.

6. Kobert K, Pfaefflin M, Reiter-Theil S (2008/in press) Evaluation des klinischen Ethik-Beratungsdienstes. Hintergrund, Konzepte und Strategie im Ev. Krankenhaus Bielefeld. Ethik in der Medizin.

7. See note 4, Trachtman 2001.

8. Agich G. The question of method in ethics consultation. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(4):31–41.

9. Orr R. Methods of conflict resolution at the bedside. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(4):45–6.

10. Orr RD, de Leon DM. The role of the clinical ethicist in conflict resolution. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2000;11(1):21–30.

11. Moreno JD. Ethics consultation as a moral engagement. Bioethics 1991;5(1):44–56.

12. Finder S, Bliton M. Activities, not rules: The need for responsive practice. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(4):52–4.

13. See note 8, Agich 2001.

14. Engelhardt TH. Psychotherapy as meta-ethics. Psychiatry 1973;36:440–5; Reiter L. Systematische Überlegungen zum Zielbegriff in der Psychotherapie. Praxis der Psychotherapie 1976;21:205–18.

15. Reiter-Theil S. Autonomie und Gerechtigkeit. Das Beispiel der Familientherapie für eine therapeutische Ethik. Heidelberg: Springer; 1988.

16. Loch W/Der Analytiker als Gesetzgeber und Lehrer. Legitime oder illegitime Rollen? Psyche 1974;28:431—460.

17. Reiter-Theil S. Ethical questions in genetic counselling: How far do concepts like ‘non-directivity’ and ‘ethical neutrality’ help in solving problems? Concilium, International Review of Theology 1998;March:23–34.

18. Agich G. Authority in ethics consultation. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 1995;23:273–83; Reiter-Theil S, Mertz M, Meyer-Zehnder B. The complex roles of relatives in end-of-life decision-making. An ethical analysis. HEC Forum 2007;19(4):338–61.

19. See note 17, Reiter-Theil 1998.

20. See note 2, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities 1998.

21. To avoid misunderstanding, this inventory is not meant to guide the process of CEC as a stepwise “method”; rather, it should help in understanding the complex process of CEC and facilitating comparative discussion.

22. Reiter-Theil S. Klinische Ethikkonsultation—Eine methodische Orientierung zur ethischen Beratung am Krankenbett. Schweizerische Ärztezeitung 2005;86(6):346–51; Hurst S, Reiter-Theil S, Baumann-Hölzle R, Foppa C, Malacrida R, Bosshard G, et al. The growth of clinical ethics in a multilingual country: Challenges and opportunities. Bioethica Forum 2008;1(1):15–24.

23. See note 2, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities 1998.

24. Sulmasy DP, Sugarman J. The many methods of medical ethics. In: Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP, eds. Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2001:3–18.

25. Bernal EW. Errors in ethics consultation. In: Rubin SB, Zoloth L, eds. Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in the Practice of Medicine, Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 2000:255–72.

26. Reitemeir PJ. Quality and error in bioethics consultation: A puzzle in pieces. In: Rubin SB, Zoloth L, eds. Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in the Practice of Medicine. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 2000:231–53.

27. See note 8, Agich 2001.

28. Fletcher J, Boyle RJ, Spencer EM. Errors in healthcare ethics consultation. In: Rubin SB, Zoloth L, eds. Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in the Practice of Medicine. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 2000:343–72.

29. Name and details anonymized.

30. Roberts D, Dalziel S. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Chochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006;Issue 3.

31. A relatively large audience of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals from German-speaking countries was familiarized with the model during case discussions in the context of training courses (of approximately 40 participants each) and small group work. Interestingly, they responded to the model because they found it particularly intuitive and applicable for the reflection on one's behavior and attitude in the context of learning ethics consultation (Distant Teaching Program “Clinical Ethics Consultation” Fernlehrgang Ethikberater/in im Gesundheitswesen, classes of 2006, 2007 and 2008).

32. The classes of the European Master in Bioethics and the Erasmus program have approximately 20 to 30 participants.

33. Reiter-Theil S, Agich GJ. Research on clinical ethics and consultation. Introduction to the thematic section. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):3–5.

34. Beck S, van de Loo A, Reiter-Theil S. A “little bit illegal”: Withholding and withdrawing of mechanical ventilation in the eyes of German intensive care physicians. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):7–16.

35. Danis M, Farrar A, Grady C, Taylor C, O'Donnell P, Soeken K, Ulrich C. Does fear of retaliation deter requests for ethics consultation? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):27–34.

36. Foerde R, Pedersen R, Akre V. Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: A tool for quality improvement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):17–25.

37. See note 6, Kobert et al. 2008.

The author is grateful for the helpful comments and editorial support of George Agich on an earlier version. The finalization of this paper was stimulated by a grant project supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation No. 3200B0-113724/1, and it will influence the ongoing project of developing a clinical ethics guideline on micro-allocation in vulnerable patient groups. The discussion with colleagues within ECEN, the Fernlehrgang (2006, 2007, 2008), the European Master in Bioethics (2006) and the Erasmus Mundus Master Bioethics (2006, 2007) have been extremely fruitful.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
  • ISSN: 0963-1801
  • EISSN: 1469-2147
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 26 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 127 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.