Defending secular clinical ethics expertise from an Engelhardt-inspired sense of theoretical crisis

Brummett, Abram

doi:10.1007/s11017-022-09566-3

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional objections are developed in further detail elsewhere. 27 We turn now to arguing that public reason contains sufficient justifiable content to address one of the perennial controversies in bioethics-the permissibility and limits of clinician conscientious objection in healthcare. 28 Part 2: A public reason-based approach to conscientious objection A clinician invokes a conscientious objection when they refuse to provide a legal and professionally accepted medical good or service on the grounds that doing so would violate their core religious or moral beliefs.…”

Section: The Moral Relativism Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics

Brummett,

Eberl

2024

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioethicists aim to provide moral guidance in policy, research, and clinical contexts using methods of moral analysis (e.g., principlism, casuistry, and narrative ethics) that aim to satisfy the constraints of public reason. Among other objections, some critics have argued that public reason lacks the moral content needed to resolve bioethical controversies because discursive reason simply cannot justify any substantive moral claims in a pluralistic society. In this paper, the authors defend public reason from this criticism by showing that it contains sufficient content to address one of the perennial controversies in bioethics—the permissibility and limits of clinician conscientious objection. They develop a “reasonability view” grounded in public reason and apply it to some recent examples of conscientious objection.

show abstract

Section: The Moral Relativism Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics

Brummett,

Eberl

2024

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Curiously, the author references Tristram Engelhardt's theory of secular bioethics to provide moral support for an institution's right to prohibit physician employees from prescribing EC in all circumstances, but this is an infirm basis for this claim. Engelhardt's account is both widely rejected in secular bioethics (on account of being internally inconsistent, leading to morally egregious consequences, and premised upon an empirically false view of moral strangerhood) (Brummett 2022), and sits in uncomfortable tension with the author's own presumably Catholic commitments (because it would prohibit the outlawing of abortion in the U.S. and would permit hospitals to engage in overt discrimination-such as not hiring Catholics).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reply: Conversation, Not Compulsion

Brummett,

Mason-Maready,

Whiting

2024

Linacre Q

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ethics of Clinical Ethics

Shea

2024

HEC Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept ethics defines health care ethics as a professional practice. Yet the meaning of “ethics” is often unclear in the theory and practice of clinical ethics. Clarity on this matter is crucial for understanding the nature of clinical ethics and for debates about the professional identity and proper role of ethicists, the sort of training and skills they should possess, and whether they have ethics expertise. This article examines two different ways the ethics of clinical ethics can be understood: Real Ethics, which consists of objective moral norms grounded in moral truth; and Conventional Ethics, which consists of conventional norms grounded in bioethical consensus. Drawing on the bioethics literature and features of professional practice, it shows that Conventional Ethics is the dominant paradigm. Then it presents a critique of Conventional Ethics, arguing that it cannot avoid the challenge of moral pluralism, it fails to address vitally important moral questions, and it is incapable of providing an essential service to the people ethicists aim to help. It ends with suggestions about how the practice of clinical ethics might overcome these problems.

show abstract

Defending secular clinical ethics expertise from an Engelhardt-inspired sense of theoretical crisis

Cited by 4 publications

References 48 publications

The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics

The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics

A Reply: Conversation, Not Compulsion

The Ethics of Clinical Ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About