Theoretical Medicine

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 15–22 | Cite as

Reflections of a reluctant clinical ethicist: Ethics consultation and the collapse of critical distance

  • David Barnard
Article

Abstract

The obvious appeal and growing momentum of clinical ethics in academic medical centers should not blind us to a potential danger: the collapse of critical distance. The very integration into the clinical milieu and the processes of clinical decision making, that clinical ethics claims as its greatest success, carries the seeds of a dilution of ethics' critical stance toward medicine and medical education. The purpose of this paper is to suggest how this might occur, and what potential contributions of ethics to medicine might be sacrificed as a result. Medical sociology will be used for comparison. Sociologists have found that they may function either as students and critics of established medical practices and educational philosophies, or as collaborative participants in them — but rarely both. It may be that professional ethics is most effective when it plays the role of ‘stranger’ rather than insider, and is continually able to question the most basic assumptions and values of the enterprise with which it is associated. As with medical sociology, ethics and humanities must ask to what extent their desire for acceptance in the clinic requires their acceptance of the clinic: specifically, acceptance of basic assumptions about optimal ways of organizing medical education, socializing physicians-in-training, providing care, and even of defining medical ethics itself. The paper concludes by recommending that ethics reassert its ‘strangeness’ in the medical milieu even as it assumes a more prominent role within the medical center.

Key words

clinical ethics critical distance ethicist ethics consultation medical sociology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gold M. A crisis of identity: the case of medical sociology. J Health Soc Behav 1977; 18:160–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Straus R. The nature and status of medical sociology. American Sociological Review 1957; 22:200–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roth J. ‘Management bias’ in social science study of medical treatment. Human Organization 1962; 21:47–50.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dingwall R. Aspects of Illness. New York: St Martin's Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glover JJ, Ozar DT, Thomasma DC. Teaching ethics on rounds: the ethicist as teacher, consultant, and decision-maker. Theor Med 1986; 7:13–32.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Churchill L. The ethicist in professional education: the role of the stranger. Hastings Cent Rep 1978; 8(6):13–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clouser KD. What is medical ethics? Ann Intern Med 1974; 80:657–60.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barnard D, Clouser KD. Teaching medical ethics in its contexts: Penn State College of Medicine. Acad Med 1989; 64:744–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Barnard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesThe Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, The Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations