PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1896951

Why philosophers should offer ethics consultations.

Abstract

Considerable debate has occurred about the proper role of philosophers when offering ethics consultations. Some argue that only physicians or clinical experienced personnel should offer ethics consultations in the clinical setting. Others argue still further that philosophers are ill-equipped to offer such advice, since to do so rests on no social warrant, and violates the abstract and neutral nature of the discipline itself. I argue that philosophers not only can offer such consultations but ought to. To be a bystander when one's discipline does offer insights and methods of value discernment is pusillanimous. But this position requires a view of clinical medical ethics as one that arises out of the clinical practice of medicine, and not just from an application of general ethical principles to the practice of medicine. I conclude with some skills that trained philosophers can bring to the consultation service, and note that all consultations are in the form of recommendations that the patient, family, and physician are still free to accept or reject. Philosophers in the clinical setting do not make decisions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D C Thomasma. 1991. Why philosophers should offer ethics consultations.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00489793

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Principlism revisited: response to Simon Waltho.

We respond to the comments provided on our paper 'Principles help to analyse but often give no solution-secondary prevention after a cardiac event' by Simon Waltho, and highlight points of clarification.

Casuistry↗

Integrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence-based approaches.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has thus far failed to adequately account for the appropriate incorporation of other potential warrants for medical decision making into clinical practice. In particular, EBM has struggled with the value and integration of other kinds of medical knowledge, such as those derived from clinical experience or based on pathophysiologic rationale. The general priority given to empirical evidence derived from clinical research in all EBM approaches is not epistemically tenable. A casuistic alternative to EBM approaches recognizes that five distinct topics, 1) empirical evidence, 2) experiential evidence, 3) pathophysiologic rationale, 4) patient goals and values, and 5) system features are potentially relevant to any clinical decision. No single topic has a general priority over any other and the relative importance of a topic will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The skilled clinician must weigh these potentially conflicting evidentiary and non-evidentiary warrants for action, employing both practical and theoretical reasoning, in order to arrive at the best choice for an individual patient.

Casuistry↗