Albany Medical College.
Saint Louis University.
Am J Bioeth. 2019 Nov;19(11):50-61. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1665729.
Our aim in this article is to bring some clarity to the clinical ethics expertise debate by critiquing and replacing the taxonomy offered by the Core Competencies report. The orienting question for our taxonomy is: Can clinical ethicists offer justified, normative recommendations for active patient cases? Views that answer "no" are characterized as a "negative" view of clinical ethics expertise and are further differentiated based on (a) why they think ethicists cannot give justified normative recommendations and (b) what they think ethicists can offer, if they cannot offer recommendations. Views that answer "yes" to the orienting question are characterized as a "positive" view of clinical ethics expertise. Positive views are distinguished according to four additional questions. First (P1), how are those recommendations generated? Second (P2), what is the nature of the recommendations? Third (P3), we ask, how are the recommendations justified? And finally (P4), how are the recommendations communicated?
我们在本文中的目的是通过批判和取代核心能力报告提供的分类法，为临床伦理专业知识的争论带来一些清晰的认识。我们分类法的导向问题是：临床伦理学家能否为积极的患者案例提供合理的、规范的建议？回答“否”的观点被描述为对临床伦理专业知识的“否定”观点，并根据（a）他们认为伦理学家为什么不能提供合理的规范建议，以及（b）如果他们不能提供建议，他们认为伦理学家可以提供什么来进一步区分。对导向问题回答“是”的观点被描述为对临床伦理专业知识的“肯定”观点。根据另外四个问题来区分积极的观点。首先（P1），这些建议是如何产生的？其次（P2），建议的性质是什么？第三（P3），我们会问，建议是如何被证明是合理的？最后（P4），建议是如何传达的？
