ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2016
Clinical Ethics Consultants are not "Ethics" Experts-But They do Have Expertise.
Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defending secular clinical ethics expertise from an Engelhardt-inspired sense of theoretical crisis.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2022Article
- What is the appropriate role of reason in secular clinical ethics? An argument for a compatibilist view of public reason.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Review
- A Guide to Establishing Ethics Committees in Behavioral Health Settings.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Article
- The Place for Religious Content in Clinical Ethics Consultations: A Reply to Janet Malek.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2019Article
- Against Inflationary Views of Ethics Expertise.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2018Article
- Two Troubling Trends in the Conversation Over Whether Clinical Ethics Consultants Have Ethics Expertise.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2018Article
- Clinical Ethics Support for Healthcare Personnel: An Integrative Literature Review.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2017Review
- The "Ethics" Expertise in Clinical Ethics Consultation.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2016Article
- Reasoning "Uncharted Territory": Notions of Expertise Within Ethics Review Panels Assessing Research Use of Social Media.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The attempt to critique the profession of clinical ethics consultation by establishing the impossibility of ethics expertise has been a red herring. Decisions made in clinical ethics cases are almost never based purely on moral judgments. Instead, they are all-things-considered judgments that involve determining how to balance other values as well. A standard of justified decision-making in this context would enable us to identify experts who could achieve these standards more often than others, and thus provide a basis for expertise in clinical ethics consultation. This expertise relies in part on what Richard Zaner calls the "expert knowledge of ethical phenomena" (1988, 8).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.