Mj. Bliton et Sg. Finder, Strange, but not stranger: The peculiar visage of philosophy in clinical ethics consultation, HUMAN STUD, 22(1), 1999, pp. 69-97
Baylis, Tomlinson, and Hoffmaster each raise a number of critiques in respo
nse to Bliton's manuscript. In response, we focus on three themes we believ
e run through each of their critiques. The first is the ambiguity between t
he role of ethics consultation within an institution and the role of the ac
tual ethics consultant in a particular situation, as well as the resulting
confusion when these roles are conflated. We explore this theme by revisiti
ng the question of "'What's going on?" in clinical ethics consultations. Mo
ving from those issues associated with the role of the ethics consultant to
those associated with the role of inquiry within the practice of ethics co
nsultation, we then take up the serious challenge that Bliton seems shackle
d by the assumptions and institutional dispositions embedded in the medical
culture in which he is working. This reveals the second theme, namely that
there is a risk of co-optation when acting in a role that derives its legi
timacy from institutional sources. Finally, we focus on an even more proble
matic implication stemming from the first two, namely that the focus on ins
titutional power as the crucial factor for determining ethical significance
has the effect of distorting, and perhaps obscuring, other forms of relati
onal, interpersonal, and moral meaning.