Affirming the Existence and Legitimacy of Secular Bioethical Consensus, and Rejecting Engelhardt’s Alternative: A Reply to Nick Colgrove and Kelly Kate Evans
- 22 June 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in HEC Forum
- Vol. 35 (1), 95-109
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-021-09452-w
Abstract
One of the most significant and persistent debates in secular clinical ethics is the question of ethics expertise, which asks whether ethicists can make justified moral recommendations in active patient cases. A critical point of contention in the ethics expertise debate is whether there is, in fact, a bioethical consensus upon which secular ethicists can ground their recommendations and whether there is, in principle, a way of justifying such a consensus in a morally pluralistic context. In a series of recent articles in this journal, Janet Malek defends a positive view of ethics expertise, claiming that secular ethicists should comport their recommendations with bioethical consensus. In response, Nick Colgrove and Kelly Kate Evans deny the existence of a secular bioethical consensus; question why, even if it did exist, consensus should be considered a reliable way of resolving bioethical questions; and recommend a friendlier approach to clinical ethics based on the thought of H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. In this article, I respond to Colgrove and Evans on all three points. In part one, I show there is a secular bioethical consensus but note it could be better consolidated and created through a more systematic and inclusive process. In part two, I argue that bioethical consensus is morally justified but note that this justification cannot be plausibly based upon claims that it only invokes moral principles available to or shared by all. In part three, I argue Engelhardt’s approach cannot be described as “friendlier” to clinical ethics because it is incompatible with many current healthcare laws and policies.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics CommitteeCritical Care Medicine, 2016
- Cracks in the Foundations of Engelhardt’s BioethicsPhilosophy and Medicine, 2015
- Non-certain Foundations: Clinical Ethics Consultation for the Rest of UsPhilosophy and Medicine, 2015
- Wide reflective equilibrium as a method of justification in bioethicsTheoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2012
- Credentialing Strategically Ambiguous and Heterogeneous Social Skills: The Emperor Without ClothesHEC Forum, 2009
- Moral Acquaintanceships as a Means of Conflict ResolutionPublished by Springer Science and Business Media LLC ,2009
- Of Goals and Goods and Floundering About: A Dissensus Report on Clinical Ethics ConsultationHEC Forum, 2009
- Of Goals and Goods and Floundering About: A Dissensus Report on Clinical Ethics ConsultationHEC Forum, 2009
- The Dead Donor Rule and Organ TransplantationThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Assessment of Patients' Competence to Consent to TreatmentThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007