Advertisement

To Stretch toward without Reaching: Moral Expertise as a Paradox in Clinical Ethics Consultation

  • Salla Saxén
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 129)

Abstract

Irrespective of whether the practice of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) is generally accepted or not, the nature of moral expertise behind it continues to be a contestable concept. In this essay, instead of arguing for whether clinical ethics consultants possess such expertise or not, I envision a third way of understanding the nature of moral expertise in ethics consultation: as the locus of an inherent paradox. I argue that moral expertise in clinical ethics consultation is built on an inner ideological struggle between pluralism and expertise—inclusion and exclusion—and that this inbuilt tension forms the core of the paradox. However, I claim that this paradox does not have to lead into a paralyzing contradiction, but instead, it could be embraced positively as a guarantee of keeping the moral space open. Moreover, I argue that putting too strong emphasis on consensus as a professional ideal of CEC may, surprisingly, threaten the fostering of open social space for moral discussions. As the baseline of this argument I utilize Mouffe’s theory of agonistics. In the end of the chapter, I conclude that recognizing the division of values, and opening social space for struggle, can in itself be seen as both a goal and a justification for clinical ethics consultation.

References

  1. Allan, K. 2007. The social Lens: An invitation to social and sociological theory. London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Archad, D. 2011. Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics 25 (3): 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aulisio, M.P., R.M. Arnold, and S.J. Youngner. 2003. Ethics consultation: From theory to practice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cribb, A., and S. Gewirtz. 2015. Professionalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, B. 2015. Moral philosophy, moral expertise, and the argument from disagreement. Bioethics 30 (3): 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crosthwaite, J. 1995. Moral expertise: A problem in the professional ethics of professional ethicists. Bioethics 9 (4): 362–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dzur, A.W. 2008. Democratic professionalism: Citizen participation and the reconstruction of professional ethics, identity, and practice. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1998. The will to knowledge: History of sexuality. Vol. 1. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Freidson, E. 1970. Professional dominance: The social structure of medical care. New Brunswick: AldineTransaction.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1988. Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, J.S. 2014. Moral philosophers are moral experts! A reply to David Archad. Bioethics 28 (4): 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks, ed. and Trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  15. Iltis, A.S., and L.M. Rasmussen. 2016. The “ethics” expertise in clinical ethics consultation. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (4): 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacIntyre, A. 1988. Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mouffe, C. 2005. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  19. Noble, C.N. 1982. Ethics and experts. The Hastings Center Report 12 (3): 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Priaulx, N., M. Weinel, and A. Wrigley. 2016. Rethinking moral expertise. Health Care Analysis 24 (4): 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rabinow, P., ed. 1984. The Foucault reader: An introduction to Foucault’s thought. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenberg, C.E. 1999. Meanings, policies, and medicine: On the bioethics Enterprise and history. Daedalus 128 (4): 27–46.Google Scholar
  23. Rothman, D.J. 1991. Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Saxén, S. 2016. Untangling uncertainty: A study of the discourses shaping clinical ethics consultation as a professional practice. Journal of Clinical Ethics 27 (2): 99–110.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2017. Same principles, different worlds: A critical discourse analysis of medical ethics and nursing ethics in Finnish professional texts. HEC Forum 30: 31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-017-9329-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shalit, R. 1997. When we were philosopher kings: The rise of the medical ethicist. New Republic April 28: 24–28.Google Scholar
  27. Turner, V.W. 1964. Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. Seattle: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
  28. Walker, M.U. 1993. Keeping moral space open: New images of ethics consultation. The Hastings Center Report 23 (2): 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yoder, S.D. 1998. The nature of ethical expertise. The Hastings Center Report 28 (6): 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salla Saxén
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations