PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11643216

Constructiveness where it counts.

Abstract

CONCLUSION: I hope that this response to Scofield's paper has accomplished two goals: 1) it helps put to rest unreal discussion of a "profession" of clinical ethics and 2) it helps to focus on the most important issues raised by Scofield upon which action can be taken. It is true that "ethics is everybody's business" and ethicists must restrain their bias when it comes to the decision-making process. But special knowledge and skills are required to nurture the elements of a clinical ethics program, to unite the efforts of its multitalented members, and to relate the literature of a rapidly growing activity in healthcare to practical projects. The issues raised in the constructive parts of Scofield's paper are an excellent point of departure for debate on how best to shape the education, training, and standards of practice for clinical ethics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John C Fletcher. 1993. Constructiveness where it counts.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11643216/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗