Abstract
JanetMalek (HEC Forum 31(2):91-102, 2019) argues that a "clinical ethics consultant's religious worldview has no place in developing ethical recommendations or communicating about them with patients, surrogates, and clinicians." She offers five types of arguments in support of this thesis: arguments from (i) consensus, (ii) clarity, (iii) availability, (iv) consistency, and (v) autonomy. This essay shows that there are serious problems for each of Malek's arguments. None of them is sufficient to motivate her thesis (nor are they jointly sufficient). Thus, if it is true that the religious worldview of clinical ethics consultants (CECs) should play no role whatsoever in their work as consultants, this claim will need to be defended on some other ground.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
