Abstract
The position of clinical ethicist exists to help resolve conflicts in the hospital. Sometimes these conflicts arise because of fundamental cultural differences between the patient and the medical team, and such cases present special challenges. Should the ideology of modern medicine reject the wishes of those who hold ideologies from differing cultures? How can the medical ethicist help resolve such conflicts? To answer these questions, I rely on the works of Alasdair MacIntyre. Using MacIntyre’s philosophy, we can better understand why traditions exist, how conflicts arise, and how opposing traditions can collaborate in shared decision making. In order to overcome conflict, I conclude that MacIntyre’s virtues of acknowledged dependence must be realized by the ethicist and those in disagreement over tradition. I use a case study of a young Amish patient to highlight the conflicts that arise and to help exhibit how shared decision making can be made possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Names and minor details of the case have been changed to protect identity of the patient.
While I disagree largely with Engelhardt’s claims regarding the lack of foundation in pluralism and secular ethics, I will forgo those disagreements, as this section is devoted to criticizing ASBH Core Competencies and not Engelhardt’s paper. His paper, however, offers useful criticisms of ASBH, which I find useful to reference.
In Dependent Rational Animals, MacIntyre does seem to suggest there is a biological reason for action (Macintyre 1999, 56).
The dependences I describe are not intended to be exhaustive.
“And sometimes it is because something happens that elicits a recognition of incoherence in a set of beliefs that had up till now been taken for granted,” (MacIntyre 2009, 10).
References
American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. (2017). Healthcare Ethics Consultation (HCEC) Certification. http://asbh.org/professional-development/hcec-certification.
American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. About. http://asbh.org/about/american-society-bioethicshumanities.
Annas, J. (1989). MacIntyre on traditions. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(4), 388–404.
Aristotle. (2000). Nichomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Ed., Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bishop, J. (2011). Waiting for St. Benedict among the ruins: MacIntyre and medical practice. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 36, 107–113.
Callahan, D. (2015). What is it to do good ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(1), 68–70.
Chan, S. (2015). A bioethics for all seasons. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(1), 17–21.
Engelhardt, H. Tristram. (2011). Core competencies for health care ethics consultants. In search of professional status in a post-modern world. HEC Forum, 23, 129–145.
Knight, K. (1998). The MacIntyre reader. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Lutz, C. (2012). Reading Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
MacIntyre, A. (1977). Epistemological crises, dramatic narrative and the philosophy of science. The Monist, 60(4), 453–472.
MacIntyre, A. (1979). Why is the search for the foundations of ethics so frustrating? The Hastings Center Report, 9(4), 16–22.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue (3rd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality?. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent rational animals (10th ed.). Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.
MacIntyre, A. (2009). God, philosophy, universities: A selective history of the Catholic philosophical tradition. Plymouth, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Savulescu, J. (2015). Bioethics: Why philosophy is essential to progress. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(1), 28–33.
Tarzian, A., & ASBH Core Competencies Update Task Force. (2013). Health care ethics consultation: An update on core competencies and emerging standards from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities’ core competencies update task force. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(2), 3–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest and has no sources of funding to declare. This article has not been published elsewhere and is not under review by any other journals.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Adkins, J. Understanding and Resolving Conflicting Traditions: A MacIntyrean Approach to Shared Deliberation in Medical Ethics. HEC Forum 30, 57–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-017-9337-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-017-9337-0