Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Ethics: Methods

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Abstract

Since its inception, Clinical Ethics has developed in a great variety of ways. A main line of division between all the methods adopted is between the ones that proposed clinical ethics consultations (CEC) and those that can be classified as moral case deliberation approaches (MCD). The first ones are centered on the patient and consist in helping an ongoing medical decision-making process that raises an ethical issue. The latter are more focused on the healthcare teams. They intend to help them in better dealing with the moral issues they face in their clinical work. Both of them are part of all the sorts of supports and services in Clinical Ethics (CESS) that can be proposed. In this entry, the different methods used for practicing Clinical Ethics will be presented with their main similarities and differences. It will be shown that the choice of method is often due to very local and contextual considerations and that at the end the specific method used matters little, as long as it contributes to a better quality of care for patients and a better awareness of the ethical challenges involved in clinical practice for the healthcare teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, D. M., & Winslade, W. J. (2011). Consensus, clinical decision making and unsettled cases. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 22(4), 310–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agich, G. (2005). What kind of doing is clinical ethics? Theoretical Medicine, 26, 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASBH. (2011). Core competencies in health care ethics consultation (2nd ed.). Glenview: ASBH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aulisio, M. P. (2011). “Facilitated Consensus”, “Ethics Facilitation”, and unsettled cases. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 22(4), 345–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadoré, B. (1997). L'éthique clinique comme philosophie contextuelle. Fides Editions. Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doucet, H. (2015). L’éthique clinique, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiester, A. (2007). Mediation and moral aporia. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 18(4), 355–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, V., et al. (2009). Clinical ethics consultation in Europe: A comparative and ethical review of the role of patients. Clinical Ethics, 4, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, V. et al. (2015). The “Commitment Model” for clinical ethics consultations: the society’s involvement in the solution of individual cases. Journal of Clinical Ethics. To be published in the Winter 2016 issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. (2010). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molewijk, B., et al. (2008). Implementing moral case deliberation in Dutch health care: Improving moral competency of professionals and the quality of care. Bioetica Forum, 1, 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, M. (1978). A legacy of Osler, teaching clinical ethics at the bedside. JAMA, 239(10), 951–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, M., Pellegrino, E. D., & Singer, P. A. (1990). Clinical medical ethics. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 1(1), 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. A., Pellegrino, E. D., & Siegler, M. (2001). Clinical ethics revisited. BMC Medical Ethics, 2, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinkamp, N., & Gordijn, B. (2003). Ethical case deliberation on the ward. A comparison of four methods. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 6, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svantesson, M., et al. (2014). Outcomes of moral case deliberation – The development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD). BMC Medical Ethics, 15, 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • Forde, R. (2008). Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: A qualitative study. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 11(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, S. (2008). The growth of clinical ethics in a multilingual country: Challenges and opportunities. Bioethics Forum, 1(1), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, R., on behalf of the European Clinical Ethics Network (ECEN), et al. (2010). The development of a descriptive evaluation tool for clinical ethics case consultations. Clinical Ethics, 5, 136–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Theil, S. (2011). Evidence-competence-discourse: The theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP. Bioethics, 25(7), 403–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomasma, D. C. (1979). Medical ethics training: A clinical partnership. Journal of Medical Education, 54(11), 897–899.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’ethique Clinique, Hôpital Cochin, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Centre, AP-HP, Paris, France

    Véronique Fournier

Authors
  1. Véronique Fournier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Véronique Fournier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duquesne University Center for Healthcare Ethics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Henk ten Have

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Fournier, V. (2015). Clinical Ethics: Methods. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_89-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_89-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation