Albany Medical College, Alden March Bioethics Institute, Albany, NY, USA.
HEC Forum. 2020 Sep;32(3):199-209. doi: 10.1007/s10730-019-09393-5.
What is the proper role of a clinical ethics consultant's (CEC) religious beliefs in forming recommendations for clinical ethics consultation? Where Janet Malek has argued that religious belief should have no influence on the formation of a CEC's recommendations, Clint Parker has argued a CEC should freely appeal to all their background beliefs, including religious beliefs, in formulating their recommendations. In this paper, I critique both their views by arguing the position envisioned by Malek puts the CEC too far from religion and the position envisioned by Parker puts the CEC too close. For a CEC to give recommendations about what is morally prohibited, permissible, or obligatory in the clinic, I propose a view of the CEC that is neither religious nor non-religious but quasi-religious. I argue that a quasi-religious approach avoids the problems of both religious and non-religious views while preserving their benefits. Additionally, a quasi-religious view resists the marginalization of "religious" traditions that occurs when secular ethicists come to think of their approach as somehow distinctly non-religious.
临床伦理顾问(CEC)的宗教信仰在形成临床伦理咨询建议中的适当角色是什么?Janet Malek 认为宗教信仰不应影响 CEC 建议的形成,而 Clint Parker 则认为 CEC 应该在制定建议时自由援引其所有背景信仰,包括宗教信仰。在本文中,我通过论证 Malek 设想的立场使 CEC 远离宗教,而 Parker 设想的立场使 CEC 过于接近宗教,对他们的观点进行了批判。对于 CEC 就诊所中道德上禁止、允许或义务的事项提出建议,我提出了一种 CEC 的观点,这种观点既不是宗教的也不是非宗教的,而是准宗教的。我认为,准宗教方法避免了宗教和非宗教观点的问题,同时保留了它们的好处。此外,准宗教观点抵制了世俗伦理学家认为他们的方法在某种程度上明显是非宗教的观点,从而使“宗教”传统边缘化。