ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2019
A pragmatist approach to clinical ethics support: overcoming the perils of ethical pluralism.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2019. 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.
- A Proposal for Addressing Bioethical Concerns Along the 10-Step Framework for Community Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Fostering moral reflectivity in community pharmacists through moral case deliberation using the dilemma method.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Ethics support for ethics support: the development of the Confidentiality Compass for dealing with moral challenges concerning (breaching) confidentiality in moral case deliberation.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- An Ethics Action Plan for Rare Disease Care: Participatory Action Research Approach.Journal of participatory medicine · 2023Article
- Developing Organizational Diversity Statements Through Dialogical Clinical Ethics Support: The Role of the Clinical Ethicist.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Framework for evaluation research on clinical ethical case interventions: the role of ethics consultants.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Conceptualizing and Fostering the Quality of CES Through a Dutch National Network on CES (NEON).HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022Article
- Theory and practice of integrative clinical ethics support: a joint experience within gender affirmative care.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In today's pluralistic society, clinical ethics consultation cannot count on a pre-given set of rules and principles to be applied to a specific situation, because such an approach would deny the existence of different and divergent backgrounds by imposing a dogmatic and transcultural morality. Clinical ethics support (CES) needs to overcome this lack of foundations and conjugate the respect for the difference at stake with the necessity to find shared and workable solutions for ethical issues encountered in clinical practice. We argue that a pragmatist approach to CES, based on the philosophical theories of William James, John Dewey, and Charles Sanders Peirce, can help to achieve the goal of reaching practical solutions for moral problems in the context of today's clinical environment, characterized by ethical pluralism. In this article, we outline a pragmatist theoretical framework for CES. Furthermore, we will show that moral case deliberation, making use of the dilemma method, can be regarded an example of a pragmatist approach to CES.
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.