Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:03:46.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dealing with the Normative Dimension in Clinical Ethics Consultation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

STELLA REITER-THEIL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Clinical ethics consultation (CEC) not only interprets moral issues at the bedside and is not restricted to giving support for the “technical” handling of these moral issues, but it has to substantively address moral values, norms, and conflicts in the process of discussing cases and problems. We call this the normative dimension and use normative in the sense of embracing moral values and convictions of persons and groups, norms, and relevant professional and ethical guidelines as well as legal frameworks. The roles and activities of the consultant as a person and the quality of CEC as a process are discussed in the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities’ (ASBH) Core Competences for Healthcare Ethics Consultation.

Type
Special Section: Coming of Age in Clinical Ethics Consultation: Time for Assessment and Evaluation
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 347 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The article focuses on the moral norms and on norms formulated in texts such as (ethics) guidelines, rather than on legal norms.

2. American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). Core Competences for Health Care Ethics Consultation. Glenview, IL: ASBH; 1998; reprinted in: Auliso MP, Arnold RM, Youngner SJ, eds. Ethics Consultation. From Theory to Practice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2003: 165–209.

3. North M. The Secular Priests. Psychotherapists in Contemporary Society. London: Allen & Unwin; 1972.

4. Trachtman H. Bioethicist: Consultant or judge? American Journal of Bioethics; 2001:1(4): 1f; available at http://www.bioethics.net/journal/j_articles.php?aid=352.

5. Halmos P. Faith of the Counselors: A Study in the Theory and Practice of Social Work and Psychotherapy. New York: Schocken; 1970.

6. Kobert K, Pfaefflin M, Reiter-Theil S (2008/in press) Evaluation des klinischen Ethik-Beratungsdienstes. Hintergrund, Konzepte und Strategie im Ev. Krankenhaus Bielefeld. Ethik in der Medizin.

7. See note 4, Trachtman 2001.

8. Agich G. The question of method in ethics consultation. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(4):31–41.

9. Orr R. Methods of conflict resolution at the bedside. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(4):45–6.

10. Orr RD, de Leon DM. The role of the clinical ethicist in conflict resolution. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2000;11(1):21–30.

11. Moreno JD. Ethics consultation as a moral engagement. Bioethics 1991;5(1):44–56.

12. Finder S, Bliton M. Activities, not rules: The need for responsive practice. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(4):52–4.

13. See note 8, Agich 2001.

14. Engelhardt TH. Psychotherapy as meta-ethics. Psychiatry 1973;36:440–5; Reiter L. Systematische Überlegungen zum Zielbegriff in der Psychotherapie. Praxis der Psychotherapie 1976;21:205–18.

15. Reiter-Theil S. Autonomie und Gerechtigkeit. Das Beispiel der Familientherapie für eine therapeutische Ethik. Heidelberg: Springer; 1988.

16. Loch W/Der Analytiker als Gesetzgeber und Lehrer. Legitime oder illegitime Rollen? Psyche 1974;28:431—460.

17. Reiter-Theil S. Ethical questions in genetic counselling: How far do concepts like ‘non-directivity’ and ‘ethical neutrality’ help in solving problems? Concilium, International Review of Theology 1998;March:23–34.

18. Agich G. Authority in ethics consultation. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 1995;23:273–83; Reiter-Theil S, Mertz M, Meyer-Zehnder B. The complex roles of relatives in end-of-life decision-making. An ethical analysis. HEC Forum 2007;19(4):338–61.

19. See note 17, Reiter-Theil 1998.

20. See note 2, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities 1998.

21. To avoid misunderstanding, this inventory is not meant to guide the process of CEC as a stepwise “method”; rather, it should help in understanding the complex process of CEC and facilitating comparative discussion.

22. Reiter-Theil S. Klinische Ethikkonsultation—Eine methodische Orientierung zur ethischen Beratung am Krankenbett. Schweizerische Ärztezeitung 2005;86(6):346–51; Hurst S, Reiter-Theil S, Baumann-Hölzle R, Foppa C, Malacrida R, Bosshard G, et al. The growth of clinical ethics in a multilingual country: Challenges and opportunities. Bioethica Forum 2008;1(1):15–24.

23. See note 2, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities 1998.

24. Sulmasy DP, Sugarman J. The many methods of medical ethics. In: Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP, eds. Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2001:3–18.

25. Bernal EW. Errors in ethics consultation. In: Rubin SB, Zoloth L, eds. Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in the Practice of Medicine, Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 2000:255–72.

26. Reitemeir PJ. Quality and error in bioethics consultation: A puzzle in pieces. In: Rubin SB, Zoloth L, eds. Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in the Practice of Medicine. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 2000:231–53.

27. See note 8, Agich 2001.

28. Fletcher J, Boyle RJ, Spencer EM. Errors in healthcare ethics consultation. In: Rubin SB, Zoloth L, eds. Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in the Practice of Medicine. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 2000:343–72.

29. Name and details anonymized.

30. Roberts D, Dalziel S. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Chochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006;Issue 3.

31. A relatively large audience of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals from German-speaking countries was familiarized with the model during case discussions in the context of training courses (of approximately 40 participants each) and small group work. Interestingly, they responded to the model because they found it particularly intuitive and applicable for the reflection on one's behavior and attitude in the context of learning ethics consultation (Distant Teaching Program “Clinical Ethics Consultation” Fernlehrgang Ethikberater/in im Gesundheitswesen, classes of 2006, 2007 and 2008).

32. The classes of the European Master in Bioethics and the Erasmus program have approximately 20 to 30 participants.

33. Reiter-Theil S, Agich GJ. Research on clinical ethics and consultation. Introduction to the thematic section. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):3–5.

34. Beck S, van de Loo A, Reiter-Theil S. A “little bit illegal”: Withholding and withdrawing of mechanical ventilation in the eyes of German intensive care physicians. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):7–16.

35. Danis M, Farrar A, Grady C, Taylor C, O'Donnell P, Soeken K, Ulrich C. Does fear of retaliation deter requests for ethics consultation? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):27–34.

36. Foerde R, Pedersen R, Akre V. Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: A tool for quality improvement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008;11(1):17–25.

37. See note 6, Kobert et al. 2008.