The Bioethicist as Healer.

Combativeness is a social illness. We are surrounded by culture wars over abortion, vaccine mandates, transgender care, how we die, and even how we define death. The problem is not that we disagree, but how we disagree: too often, with anger, aggression, and a sense of urgency to win against the other. Bioethicists have the knowledge and skills needed to model constructive disagreement and respectful calls for change. Bioethicists may have increased awareness that everyone suffers from unconscious self-serving biases-we are all imperfect. They are trained to recognize competing values and to engage in processes of balancing values in social contexts. Clinical ethicists are additionally trained in mediation, which involves acknowledging goodwill, listening deeply, apologizing when needed, and seeking common ground. In short, bioethicists have many of the tools needed to be healers of a culture afflicted with combativeness.

Hidden Fault Lines in the Bedrock: A Critical Examination of Surrogate Decision-Making Standards in Ethics Consultation.

AbstractClinical ethicists are routinely consulted in cases that involve conflicts and uncertainties related to surrogate decision-making for incapacitated patients. To navigate these cases, we invoke a canonical ethical-legal hierarchy of decision-making standards: the patient's known wishes, substituted judgment, and best interest. Despite the routine application of this hierarchy, however, critical scholarly literature alleges that these standards fail to capture patients' preferences and surrogates' behaviors. Moreover, the extent to which these critiques are incorporated into consultant practices is unclear. In this article I thus explore whether, and how, existing critiques of the hierarchy affect the application of these standards during ethics consults. After discussing four critiques of the hierarchy, I examine how two prominent published ethics consultation methodologies-bioethics mediation and CASES-incorporate these critiques differently. I then argue that while both methodologies explicitly endorse the same hierarchy, the varying degrees to which these four criticisms are incorporated into the prescribed consultation process could produce different applications of the same standard. I demonstrate with a case study how an ethics consultant following either methodology might produce two substantively different recommendations despite using the same substituted judgment standard. I conclude that while this heterogeneity of application should not dismantle the hierarchy's status as field-wide canon, it complicates projects of professional ethics consultation consensus building.

Beyond the Hospital Walls: The Role of the Ethicist in Community Healthcare Settings.

AbstractCommunity-based "free" clinics can be a key site of primary and preventive care, especially for underserved members of the community. Ethical issues arise in community clinics. Despite this-and the fact that ethics consultation is a well-established practice within hospitals-ethics support is rarely integrated within community clinics, and the clinical ethicist's role in community care settings remains unexplored. In this article I explore what community-engaged practice might look like for the clinical ethicist. I share my experience of being invited into a local community clinic where a team of volunteers, in partnership with a local church, provide care to persons experiencing housing and food security in our county. First, I outline some of the key ethical issues we encounter in our clinic, including how to promote the agency of community members, develop shared standards for clinic volunteers, and balance different values and priorities within the partnership. Second, I explore how the ethicist's knowledge and skills translate into this setting. I argue that, given the range of ethical issues that arise in community clinics and the need for ongoing dialogue, education, and critical reflection within such partnerships, there is a role for the clinical ethicist in this space. I discuss how clinical ethicists might begin to develop community-based partnerships and practices.

Understanding Clinical Ethics Consultation: What Stories Reveal.

This commentary reflects on twelve stories of participants in clinical ethics consultations from the perspective of family members, some of whom are ethics consultants, and healthcare professionals. Together they reveal expectations of ethics consultations and suggest descriptions of the service. Some common themes emerge, including the role of the clinical ethics consultant in navigating complex situations, assuring all stake-holder voices are heard, attending to moral distress, addressing issues that seem beyond medical practice, and being accessible. They are almost uniformly positive about the experience, with criticism primarily about lack of access to the service.

Clinical Ethics Consultations: What do Requestors Say?

This symposium collection of twelve narratives from individuals who experienced clinical ethics consultations provides perspectives from a group that has not been adequately explored in the bioethics literature. The authors represent a variety of stakeholders who received ethics consultations: healthcare providers and family members. This commentary will focus on three themes addressed in the different narrative accounts: the reasons for requesting an ethics consultation; the expectations of the narrators from the consultation; and the conclusions the authors drew from their experience of the ethics consultation.

Three Types of Stories About Encountering Bioethics.

This commentary discusses 12 stories about receiving ethics consultation in hospitals. Five stories are by physicians, three by nurses, and four by family members; three of the writers have training in bioethics. Some writers requested the consultation, others experienced the consultation as an imposition forced upon them, and in two cases, the story is about the absence of any consultation service. Three types of narrative are found to structure the stories: the genuine dilemma narrative, the institutional intransigence narrative, and the relational care narrative. Throughout, the question is what makes for a valuable consultation, and the general answer is whether consultation enables the development of mutually supportive relationships.

Difficult Discharge in the Context of Suspected Malingering: Reflections on the Value of Epistemic and Professional Independence.

During a clinical ethics fellow's first week of independent supervised service, two unhoused patients on the same floor were resisting the medical team's recommendations to discharge. In the team's view, both were medically stable and no longer required hospitalization in an acute setting. The medical team suspected malingering for both. The social worker and case manager had employed their usual means of gentle persuasion and eliminating psychosocial barriers to no avail. Rather than call the police, the attending physician, social worker, and case manager decided to call ethics. These cases lead the fledgling fellow to consider the appropriate role for ethicists in difficult discharge cases. The article analyzes each case, evaluates their similarities and differences in the context of suspected malingering, and comments on ethical issues surrounding cases of suspected malingering. Finally, the authors reflect on the value and importance of developing and maintaining epistemic and professional independence.

ChatGPT as Research Scientist: Probing GPT's capabilities as a Research Librarian, Research Ethicist, Data Generator, and Data Predictor.

How good a research scientist is ChatGPT? We systematically probed the capabilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across four central components of the scientific process: as a Research Librarian, Research Ethicist, Data Generator, and Novel Data Predictor, using psychological science as a testing field. In Study 1 (Research Librarian), unlike human researchers, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 hallucinated, authoritatively generating fictional references 36.0% and 5.4% of the time, respectively, although GPT-4 exhibited an evolving capacity to acknowledge its fictions. In Study 2 (Research Ethicist), GPT-4 (though not GPT-3.5) proved capable of detecting violations like p-hacking in fictional research protocols, correcting 88.6% of blatantly presented issues, and 72.6% of subtly presented issues. In Study 3 (Data Generator), both models consistently replicated patterns of cultural bias previously discovered in large language corpora, indicating that ChatGPT can simulate known results, an antecedent to usefulness for both data generation and skills like hypothesis generation. Contrastingly, in Study 4 (Novel Data Predictor), neither model was successful at predicting new results absent in their training data, and neither appeared to leverage substantially new information when predicting more vs. less novel outcomes. Together, these results suggest that GPT is a flawed but rapidly improving librarian, a decent research ethicist already, capable of data generation in simple domains with known characteristics but poor at predicting novel patterns of empirical data to aid future experimentation.

Advocacy and Bioethics: Aspiration, Obligation, and Negotiation.

AbstractA long-standing tenet of healthcare clinical ethics consultation has involved the neutrality of the ethicist. However, recent pressing societal issues have challenged this viewpoint. Perhaps now more than ever before, ethicists are being called upon to take up roles in public health, policy, and other community-oriented endeavors. In this article, I first review the concept of professional advocacy and contrast this conceptualization with the role of patient advocate, utilizing the profession of nursing as an exemplar. Then, I explore the status of advocacy in clinical ethics and how this conversation intersects with the existing professional obligations of the bioethicist, arguing that the goals of ethics consultation and ethical obligations of the clinical ethicist are compatible with the role of professional advocate. Finally, I explore potential barriers to professional advocacy and offer suggestions for a path forward.

Integrating Public Health Ethics into Public Health Policymaking: Being in the Room Where It Happens.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey.

Bioethicists influence practices and policies in medicine, science, and public health. However, little is known about bioethicists' views. We recently surveyed 824 U.S. bioethicists on a wide range of ethical issues, including topics related to abortion, medical aid in dying, and resource allocation, among others. We also asked bioethicists about their demographic, religious, academic, and professional backgrounds. We find that bioethicists' normative commitments predict their views on bioethical issues. We also find that, in important ways, bioethicists' views do not align with those of the U.S. public: for instance, bioethicists are more likely than members of the public to think abortion is ethically permissible but are less likely to believe compensating organ donors is. Our demographic results indicate the field of bioethics is far less diverse than the U.S. population-less diverse even than other academic disciplines-suggesting far more work needs to be done to build an inclusive field.