The standardization of clinical ethics consultation and technique’s “long encirclement” of humanity: a response to Brummett and Muaygil

In their recent article, Brummett and Muaygil reject Bishop et al.’s framing of the debate over standardization in clinical ethics consultation (CEC) “as one between pro-credentialing procedural and anti-credentialing phenomenological,” claiming that this framing “amounts to a false dichotomy betwee...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM Vol. 16; no. 1; pp. 13 - 5
Main Authors: Parks, Benjamin N., Mason, Jordan
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London BioMed Central 12.10.2021
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Subjects:
Adaptation
Bioethics
Clinical ethics consultation
Commentary
Credentialing
Education
Ellul, Jacques
Ethicists
Ethics
Ethics Consultation
Ethics, Clinical
Humans
Medical ethics
Methods
Phenomenology
Philosophy
Philosophy of Medicine
Proceduralism
Propaganda
Reference Standards
Standardization
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
United States
United States
Saudi Arabia
United States > US
California
Phenomenology
Credentialing
Clinical ethics consultation
Proceduralism
Standardization
ISSN:1747-5341, 1747-5341
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In their recent article, Brummett and Muaygil reject Bishop et al.’s framing of the debate over standardization in clinical ethics consultation (CEC) “as one between pro-credentialing procedural and anti-credentialing phenomenological,” claiming that this framing “amounts to a false dichotomy between two extreme approaches to CEC.” Instead of accepting proceduralism and phenomenology as a binary, Brummett and Muaygil propose that these two views should be seen as the extreme ends of a spectrum upon which CEC should be done. However, as evidenced by several inconsistencies within their article, they have failed to fully appreciate the concern animating Bishop et al.’s proposal. Additionally, because of this failure, they do not seem to realize that credentialing ethicists for CEC will only create different problems in Saudi Arabia even as it possibly solves some of the current problems they identify. In this commentary, we highlight and clarify Brummet and Muaygil’s five misunderstandings of Bishop et al. This leads us to conclude that while they claim to be advocating a middle way between proceduralism and phenomenology, in fact they would like for us to standardize another proceduralism, albeit one that incorporates some of the “qualitative” values of American bioethics.
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Commentary-1
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Correspondence-1
ISSN:1747-5341
1747-5341
DOI:10.1186/s13010-021-00112-y