Abstract

The peer reviewers of Part Two critically appraise and reflect on the clinical ethicist’s actions in “The Zadeh Scenario.” In what follows, I first outline four prominent methods for “doing” clinical ethics. For each I consider if, and how, the method may have been utilized in the peer reviews of Part Two. Where peer reviewers employ different methods within their analyses, or where they are unclear in their methods, I draw attention to it. Finally, I propose a method that I believe is a common thread in all of the peer reviewers’ assessments; I call this method “proceduralism,” a method that echoes narrative and pragmatism approaches while using procedural standards to orient the method.