Hoodia diet

The medical tradition has contributed methods, assumptions, and traditions of clinical practice: a combination of technical knowledge and clinical experience (La Puma and Toulmin). Some argue that physicians are best suited to provide clinical ethics consultation because (1) their advice will be easily accepted by their medical colleagues, because they have clinical experience and speak the same language;
and (2) only physicians can understand the ethos of physicianpatient relationships.

Critics caution that because they are “insiders,” physicians may promote the values of medicine rather than those of their patients or the larger community. They argue that the ethics consultant should serve as a bridge between medical and other values, and cannot function properly from a position entirely within medicine (Glover et al.; Churchill). Moral philosophy has offered three major approaches to clinical ethics consultation. The first is principle-based ethics, which argues that the answer to a given ethical question or dilemma may be discovered by applying the correct ethical theory (e.g., utilitarianism) or principle (e.g., autonomy) to the case. The second is virtue ethics, which

emphasizes that the possession of certain virtues (e.g., honesty, loyalty, compassion) is essential to sound ethical decision making. The third is a case-based or casuistic ethic, which holds that by examining the particulars of a given caseand comparing them with similar cases, a moral maxim that applies to the case can be discovered. An advantage of casuistry is that it sues a decision-making method already
employed by clinicians (Jonsen and Toulmin). Casuistry relies upon teachable medical moral maxims that build upon
experience.

Because casuistry is not principle-based, it has been criticized as “situational,” that is, pragmatically driven
to solve individual problems without reference to a broader moral framework. While principle-based clinical ethics reasoning has the
advantage of providing a consistent moral reference point, its principles are necessarily abstract, often conflict with each
other, and may create a rigid paradigm that is insensitive to differences in specific cases. Theology and religion contribute to clinical ethics
consultation by recognizing that specific religious positions may either facilitate the resolution of an ethical question or
contribute to its intensity.

For example, the Jehovah’s Witness position on blood transfusions can create serious ethical dilemmas in the case of a Jehovah’s Witness patient who is in urgent need of extensive, lifesaving surgery but
refuses blood. One of the disadvantages of this perspective is that many physicians are suspicious of or even hostile to
religious or theological interpretations of medical problems. However, insight into the religious morality of patients,
family members, and healthcare professionals is useful in establishing communication and reaching understanding among physicians, patients, and family members.