American Society For Bioethics And Humanities Research Articles

Professionalization of Clinical Ethics Consultants: A Need for Liability Protection?

Clinical Ethics Consultation (CEC) has grown significantly in the last decade, and efforts are being made to professionalize the practice. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has been instrumental in this process, having published the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants and founded and endorsed the creation of the Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certified (HCEC) Certification Commission. The ASBH also published "core competencies" for healthcare ethics consultants and has delineated a clear identity and role of such consultants distinct from that other healthcare professionals. In addition, more enter the field armed with advanced degrees (MA and PhD) or certification in clinical ethics consultation. While some have questioned the trend toward professionalization, the momentum is clearly in its favor. This paper explores three questions: Does the professionalization of healthcare ethics consultation expose those engaged in the field to the types of liability claims faced by professionals in other fields? What specific liabilities could affect a healthcare ethics consultant? And finally, what should healthcare ethics consultants do to protect themselves against liability claims? We conclude that while the risk of liability remains low, those engaged in the field should accept that risk just as part of their status as professionals and, like those in allied professions, seek appropriate protection in the form of liability insurance.

Credentialing Character: A Virtue Ethics Approach to Professionalizing Healthcare Ethics Consultation Services.

In the process of professionalization, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has emphasized process and knowledge as core competencies for clinical ethics consultants; however, the credentialing program launched in 2018 fails to address both pillars. The inadequacy of this program recalls earlier critiques of the professionalization effort made by Giles R. Scofield and H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.. Both argue that ethics consultation is not a profession and the effort to professionalize is motivated by self-interest. One argument they offer against professionalization is that ethics consultants lack normative expertise. Although the question of expertise cannot be resolved completely, the accusation of self-interest can be addressed. Underlying these critiques is a concern for hubris, which can be addressed in certification and the vetting of candidates.Drawing on the virtue ethics literature of Alasdair MacIntyre and Edmund D. Pellegrino, I argue that medicine is a moral community in which ethics consultants are moral agents with a duty to foster the virtue of humility (or what Pellegrino and Thomasma call self-effacement). The implications of this argument include a requirement for self-reflection in one's role as a moral agent and reflection on one's progress toward developing or deepening virtuous engagement with the moral community of medicine. I recommend that professionalization of clinical ethics consultants include a self-reflective narrative component in the initial certification and ongoing renewal of certification where clinical ethics consultants address the emotional dimensions of their work as well as their own moral development. Adopting a teleological view of ethics consultation and incorporating narratives that work toward that purpose will mitigate the self-interest and hubris of the professionalization project.

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

The national standards for clinical ethics consultation set forth by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) endorse an "ethics facilitation" approach, which characterizes the role of the ethicist as one skilled at facilitating consensus within the range of ethically acceptable options. To determine the range of ethically acceptable options, ASBH recommends the standard model of decision-making (informed consent, advance directives, surrogates, best interests), which is grounded in the values of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. has sharply criticized the standard model for presuming contentful moral claims in circumscribing the range of ethically acceptable options, which, he argues, cannot be rationally justified in a pluralistic context. Engelhardt's solution is a secular clinical ethics based on a contentless principle of permission. The first part of this article lays out Engelhardt's negative claim, that reason cannot establish contentful moral claims, and his positive claim, that secular clinical ethics ought to be based on a contentless principle of permission. The second part critiques these negative and positive claims. The purpose of this paper is to defend secular clinical ethics expertise-defined as the ability of ethicists to offer justified moral recommendations grounded in consensus positions endorsed by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities-from the radical critiques of Engelhardt, who argues that no moral or metaphysical claims, and hence no bioethical consensus, can be rationally justified. Engelhardt's critiques have caused some to worry that secular clinical ethics is in a state of theoretical crisis; this article concludes that Engelhardt's view is an unstable basis for that worry.

Competencies and Milestones for Bioethics Trainees: Beyond ASBH’s Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification and Core Competencies

Clinical ethics training programs are responsible for preparing their trainees to be competent ethics consultants worthy of the trust of patients, families, surrogates, and healthcare professionals. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) offers a certification examination for healthcare ethics consultants, no tools exist for the formal evaluation of ethics trainees to assess their progress toward competency. Medical specialties accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) use milestones to report trainees’ progress along a continuum of professional development as a means of “operationalizing and implementing” medical competencies. Utilizing the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation and the ACGME and American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Pediatric Milestones Project, we developed milestones for 17 subcompetencies in clinical ethics consultation and academic bioethics. As the field of clinical ethics becomes more standardized, such tools will be needed to promote the development of robust training programs and to certify that their graduates are competent practitioners.

A Pre-Doctoral Clinical Ethics Fellowship for Medical Students

Despite the need for trained physician ethicists, fellowships in clinical ethics are limited and primarily offered to those who have completed a graduate degree. The standardization of credentialing for clinical ethics consultants (CECs) and the restructuring of undergraduate medical education allow innovative models to train CECs that can provide an expanded opportunity for formal ethics training at an earlier stage. At the University of Michigan Medical School we developed, implemented, and evaluated a pre-doctoral clinical ethics fellowship program from 2017 to 2019 for senior medical students, designed to meet established competencies for CECs. Consultation notes from the beginning and end of the fellowship program were randomly selected for each fellow and independently rated by two faculty ethicists who used the validated Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT). Inter rater reliability and trends in scores over time were calculated. Three students successfully completed the fellowship at the University of Michigan Medical School, conducted at least 50 formal ethics consultations, and spent approximately 40 hours a week on service for a minimum of six months. All students finished the fellowship with teaching and policy development experience, first-authored peer-reviewed manuscripts, and national presentations. The fellows demonstrated improvement in their ECQAT overall holistic rating score; all ended their fellowship with a holistic score of adequate or above. There was 92 percent agreement between raters with respect to the acceptability of the fellows' ethics consult notes. Two fellows have taken and passed the Healthcare Ethics Consultant-Certification (HEC-C) exam offered by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). Integration of a pre-doctoral fellowship model that meets professional certification standards for clinical ethics consultation creates an opportunity for medical students to become trained CECs early in their career.

Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation

We argue for the addition of trauma informed awareness, training, and skill in clinical ethics consultation by proposing a novel framework for Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation (TIEC). This approach expands on the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) framework for, and key insights from feminist approaches to, ethics consultation, and the literature on trauma informed care (TIC). TIEC keeps ethics consultation in line with the provision of TIC in other clinical settings. Most crucially, TIEC (like TIC) is systematically sensitive to culture, history, difference, power, social exclusion, oppression, and marginalization. By engaging a neonatal intensive care ethics consult example, we define our TIEC approach and illustrate its application. Through TIEC we argue it is the role of ethics consultants to not only hold open moral spaces, but to furnish them in morally habitable ways for all stakeholders involved in the ethics consultation process, including patients, surrogates, and practitioners.

The Advent of the Professional Ethicist: Moral Expertise and Health-Care Ethics Certification.

With the Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification (HEC-C) offered through the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH), the practice of clinical ethics has taken a decisive step into professionalization. But without an unambiguous sense of what clinical ethicists can contribute to the clinical environment, it is unclear what the HEC-C ensures clinical ethicists can do. Though the ASBH enumerates a set of core competencies, many disagree over what role those competencies empower ethicists to serve. Two recent publications are notable for advocating conflicting positions on the question of ethicists' competence: "Ethics Expertise: What It Is, How to Get It, and What to Do with It" by Christopher Meyers (2018) and Rethinking Health Care Ethics by Stephen Scher and Kasia Kozlowska (2018). In response to Scher and Kozlowska's argument that the primary role of ethicists is to create space to engage clinician's moral intuitions, this analysis follows Meyers in contending that ethicists can also contribute a kind of moral expertise. However, acquiring moral expertise is no easy task, and it is unlikely to be substantiated by a certification exam. This analysis draws on research from the psychology of expertise to outline the sort of training needed to cultivate and enhance moral expertise.

The ASBH Approach to Certify Clinical Ethics Consultants Is Both Premature and Inadequate

In November 2018 the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) administered the first Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification examination to 138 candidates, 136 of whom (98.5 percent) passed and were "certified" as "healthcare ethics consultants." I believe this certification process is both premature and inadequate. Certification for ethics consultants is premature because, as Kornfeld and Prager state repeatedly in their article in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, "The Clinician as Clinical Ethics Consultant: An Empirical Method of Study," there is a lack of "empirical data on the nature of the problems that prompt ethics consultation requests and on the functions required to address them." These authors proceed to provide a model for the kind of empirical data collection that is needed. Even more relevant, the ASBH model that certifies clinical ethics consultants is inadequate. First, it is inappropriate for a nonclinical organization such as the ASBH to claim the right to certify a clinical process, ethics consultation, involving patients and health professionals. Second, the current certification process requires only a written examination in contrast to the two-step quality attestation process proposed in 2013 by Eric Kodish, MD, and 11 other senior members of the ASBH, including its then president. Third and most importantly, the eligibility criteria for being certified to work on hospital units and to make clinical recommendations for patients and families are minimal and insufficient. The only stated requirements are a bachelor's degree and 400 hours of healthcare ethics consulting experience. By contrast, practicing physicians and nurses train for many years to gain clinical experience that enables them to apply clinical ethical standards in the care and management of all inpatients and outpatients, not just the small percent for whom an ethics consultation is requested.

The Pitfalls of Proceduralism: An Exploration of the Goods Internal to the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation.

In an age of professionalization and specialization, the practice of clinical ethics is facing an identity crisis. Are clinical ethicists moral experts, ethics experts, or merely quasi-lawyers giving legal advice? Are they extensions of the hospital, always working to advance the hospital's interests? Or is there another option? Since 1998, when the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) first issued its Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation, there has been debate about the role of standardization and proceduralism in clinical ethics consultation. Now, as ASBH continues to move forward with its credentialing program, proceduralism in clinical ethics must be critically examined. In this paper, I argue that the proceduralist approach to clinical ethics consultation, as espoused by the ASBH's call for credentialing, creates a demeaning experience for all parties involved and precludes goods internal to the practice of clinical ethics consultation from being actualized. As a practice embedded in medicine and in institutions such as the hospital, clinical ethics consultation must define and examine its own goods in order to bring about more than a sterile, law-like solution to difficult moral quandaries, as these sterile solutions leave patients, families, and providers unsatisfied, abandoned, and disappointed. Thus, in an effort to push back against this proceduralism in clinical ethics consultation, I will offer a preliminary exploration of what these goods might be.

The Work of ASBH’s Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Committee: Development Processes Behind Our Educational Materials

The authors of this article are previous or current members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs (CECA) Committee, a standing committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). The committee is composed of seasoned healthcare ethics consultants (HCECs), and it is charged with developing and disseminating education materials for HCECs and ethics committees. The purpose of this article is to describe the educational research and development processes behind our teaching materials, which culminated in a case studies book called A Case-Based Study Guide for Addressing Patient-Centered Ethical Issues in Health Care (hereafter, the Study Guide). In this article, we also enumerate how the Study Guide could be used in teaching and learning, and we identify areas that are ripe for future work.

The “Commitment Model” for Clinical Ethics Consultations: Society’s Involvement in the Solution of Individual Cases

Several approaches to clinical ethics consultation (CEC) exist in medical practice and are widely discussed in the clinical ethics literature; different models of CECs are classified according to their methods, goals, and consultant's attitude. Although the "facilitation" model has been endorsed by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) and is described in an influential manual, alternative approaches, such as advocacy, moral expertise, mediation, and engagement are practiced and defended in the clinical ethics field. Our Clinical Ethics Center in Paris was founded in 2002 in the wake of the Patients' Rights Act, and to date it is the largest center that provides consultation services in France. In this article we shall describe and defend our own approach to clinical ethics consultation, which we call the "Commitment Model," in comparison with other existing models. Indeed commitment implies, among other meanings, continuity through time, a series of coherent actions, and the realization of important social goals. By drawing on a recent consultation case, we shall describe the main steps of our consultation procedure: interviews with major stakeholders, including patients and proxies; case conferences; and follow up. We shall show why we have chosen the term "commitment" to represent our approach at three different but interrelated levels: commitment towards patients, within the case conference group, and towards society as a whole.

Case Complexity and Quality Attestation for Clinical Ethics Consultants

A proposal by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) to identify individuals who are qualified to perform ethics consultations neglects case complexity in candidates' portfolios. To protect patients and healthcare organizations, and to be fair to candidates, a minimum case complexity level must be clearly and publicly articulated. This proof-of-concept study supports the feasibility of assessing case complexity. Using text analytics, we developed a complexity scoring system, and retrospectively analyzed more than 500 ethics summaries of consults performed at an academic medical center during 2013. We demonstrate its use with seven case summaries that range in complexity from uncomplicated to very complicated. We encourage the ASBH to require a minimum level of case complexity, and recommend that attestation portfolios include several cases of moderate complexity and at least one very complex case.

A Code of Ethics for Health Care Ethics Consultants: Journey to the Present and Implications for the Field

For decades a debate has played out in the literature about who bioethicists are, what they do, whether they can be considered professionals qua bioethicists, and, if so, what professional responsibilities they are called to uphold. Health care ethics consultants are bioethicists who work in health care settings. They have been seeking guidance documents that speak to their special relationships/duties toward those they serve. By approving a Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Health Care Ethics Consultants, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has moved the professionalization debate forward in a significant way. This first code of ethics focuses on individuals who provide health care ethics consultation (HCEC) in clinical settings. The evolution of the code's development, implications for the field of HCEC and bioethics, and considerations for future directions are presented here.

Structuring a Written Examination to Assess ASBH Health Care Ethics Consultation Core Knowledge Competencies

As clinical ethics consultants move toward professionalization, the process of certifying individual consultants or accrediting programs will be discussed and debated. With certification, some entity must be established or ordained to oversee the standards and procedures. If the process evolves like other professions, it seems plausible that it will eventually include a written examination to evaluate the core knowledge competencies that individual practitioners should possess to meet peer practice standards. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has published core knowledge competencies for many years that are accepted by experts as the prevailing standard. Probably any written examination will be based upon the ASBH core knowledge competencies. However, much remains to be done before any examination may be offered. In particular, it seems likely that a recognized examining board must create and validate examination questions and structure the examination so as to establish meaningful, defensible parameters after dealing with such challenging questions as: Should the certifying examination be multiple choice or short-answer essay? How should the test be graded? What should the pass rate be? How may the examination be best administered? To advance the field of health care ethics consultation, thought leaders should start to focus on the written examination possibilities, to date unaddressed carefully in the literature. Examination models—both objective and written—must be explored as a viable strategy about how the field of health care ethics consultations can grow toward professionalization.

Credentialization or Critique? Neoliberal Ideology and the Fate of the Ethical Voice

In this commentary we respond to White, Jankowski, andShelton’s (2014) article about structuring a written exam-ination to assess what the American Society for Bioethicsand Humanities (ASBH) calls health care ethics consul-tation “core knowledge competencies” (ASBH 2011). Wechallenge the need for such tests and question what pur-posetheyservesavetofurtheradvanceaneoliberalversionofethics—anethicscolonizedbythecorporatistideologyof“entrepreneurialfreedomsandskillswithinaninstitutionalframework”(Harvey2005,2).Focusingonhealthcareethicsconsultants,theauthorsproposeacredentializingexamina-tion to measure ethical “core competencies” in a mannerthat would be “statistically reliable” and based on “fac-tual information, which is noncontroversial.” They furtherspeculate on “business plan development” and the “bud-getary implications” of such minutiae as multiple-choiceversus essay questions, and the outsourced costs of “psy-chometric analysis and review.” The article itself gets tan-gled in its own web of proceduralism and managerialism,ignoring the substantive ethical stakes of the litigious creeptoward the credentialization and professionalization ofbioethics.If bioethics were subject to a professional body anda standardized examination, the terms of ethical de-liberation and decision making would be sharply cir-cumscribed. “Factual” terms and procedurally verifiablepractices—arbitrarily defined—would determine in ad-vancewhatkindsofquestionscouldbeasked,inwhatway,by whom, and of whom. And under ever-increasing pres-sure to “vocationalize” curricula, educational institutionswouldaltertheirinstructionto“teachtothetest.”Aprofes-

Women's Neuroethics? Why Sex Matters for Neuroethics

The Neuroethics Affinity Group of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) met for the third time in October 2007 to review progress in the field of neuroethics and consider high-impact priorities for the future. Closely aligned with ASBH's own goals of recruiting junior scholars to bioethics and mentoring them to successful careers, the Neuroethics Affinity Group placed a call for new ideas to be presented at the Group meeting, specifically by junior attendees. One group responded with the idea to probe a new direction for neuroethics focused on the neuroscience of gender differences. In the spirit of full disclosure, two of the authors are a student (Chalfin) and fellow (Murphy) of the program I formerly directed at Stanford University. The third (Karkazis) is junior faculty there. The intellectual ownership of the ideas in the report below, however, are entirely theirs. Like lit torches in a juggling act, there are many directions this project can go. The report is a snapshot of these authors' first iteration of the concept of women's neuroethics. Many thanks are extended to participants of the ASBH Neuroethics Affinity Group meeting whose enthusiasm and feedback was immensely helpful in shaping the concept and moving it ahead. —Judy Illes, Editor AJOB-Neuroscience

Educational Approaches to the Responsible Conduct of Clinical Research: An Exploratory Study

To identify best practices in education related to the responsible conduct of clinical research (RCCR). American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) members involved with teaching RCCR were asked to complete an online survey, followed by an in-depth telephone interview. The online survey asked about respondents' RCCR teaching, trainees, and institutional context. The phone interview involved discussions about teaching strategies, institutional context, and needs. The study was conducted between 2003 and 2005. Forty-eight respondents to the online survey indicated a breadth of topics being covered in RCCR curricula; 35 respondents indicated that their RCCR teaching applied toward institutional RCCR requirements. Among the 21 instructors interviewed, many described a wide variety of teaching responsibilities. Recommended teaching strategies included fostering interactive discussion, using skills-based exercises such as designing IRB applications, accommodating students' individual interests in curriculum design, involving experienced researchers, involving trainees early in their careers as well as requiring continuing education, and designing a curriculum with a clear view of educational objectives. Interviewees described the institutional supports they needed, and they noted that insufficient support sometimes undermines RCCR teaching goals. Participants generally agreed that RCCR education should be required. Strong agreement among participants concerning recommended strategies for teaching RCCR provides useful, if provisional, guidance to instructors and institutions charged with providing such training. The study suggests a need for substantial investments in RCCR training, studying outcomes, and developing mechanisms to ensure the quality of instruction.

Bioethics, Medical Humanities, and the Future of the "Field": Reflections on the Results of the ASBH Survey of North American Graduate Bioethics/Medical Humanities Training Programs

In the summer of 1999 at the annual bioethics “summer camp” in Virginia, a discussion session was held on bioethics and medical humanities graduate programs. Participants represented a wide variety of institutions and programs—small and large, thriving and struggling—with an equally wide assortment of educational offerings— certiŽcate, fellowship, M.A., and Ph.D.; traditional and web based. Some participants enthusiastically spoke of plans to launch new programs, even as others wondered aloud about the viability of their existing ones. Just as pressing were concerns and differences over what various programs prepared one to do and employment prospects for graduates. The discussion at that Virginia “summer camp” did not, of course, occur in a vacuum. It reected a broader conversation that was going on concerning the nature and direction of the “Želd” (bioethics? medical humanities? academic? clinical? profession? discipline? hybrid? reform directed? co-opted? etc.). Indeed, as early as the Žrst annual meeting of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) in November of 1998 a motion was passed to study the growing number of training programs in bioethics and medical humanities and the implications for graduates of those programs. It was this ongoing conversation that ultimately prompted successive presidents of ASBH, Mary Faith Marshall and Laurie Zoloth, to appoint and support the ASBH Status of the Field Committee. The Committee’s Žrst project, done in cooperation with the Canadian Bioethics Society and with support from The Greenwall Foundation, was to survey graduate programs in North America that train individuals for work in bioethics or medical humanities. This special The American Journal of Bioethics forum focuses on the possible implications of the results of the ASBH Status of the Field Committee’s survey of graduate bioethics/medical humanities training programs in North America. The forum is divided into two sections. Section one consists of contributions from persons currently working in the Želd (with all due caveats, “bioethics/medical humanities”), while section two comprises comments by current or former graduate students in bioethics/medical humanities programs. In order to ensure a balanced set of commentary articles covering a wide range of graduate student experiences while also addressing a common set of signiŽcant questions about graduate bioethics and medical humanities programs, we asked all graduate student commentators to consider the following questions: 1. The Status of the Field Committee Chair, L. S. Rothenberg, sought the advice of the Director of the OfŽce for Protection of Research Subjects at the University of California at Los Angeles, on the question of whether a certiŽcate of exemption from the institutional review board (IRB), was needed for this study. He was advised that as a private organization, ASBH does not need an IRB certiŽcate of exemption to publish research developed by the organization and funded by a private foundation grant to the organization. Keywords