Final comments

David M. Adams; William J. Winslade

doi:10.1086/jce201122408

Final comments

David M. Adams, William J. Winslade

Bioethics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

We argued in our joint article that the facilitated consensus model of clinical ethics consultation is incomplete because it does not address the problem of what we have called "unsettled cases." Sabrina Derrington and April Dworetz, Mark Aulisio, and Al Jonsen have each usefully challenged our claims and conclusions. In this brief article we respond to some of their arguments.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	358-362
Number of pages	5
Journal	Journal of Clinical Ethics
Volume	22
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1086/jce201122408
State	Published - 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Medicine

Access to Document

10.1086/jce201122408

Cite this

@article{8b0398b8253b4ea89a79d294efb07d4b,

title = "Final comments",

abstract = "We argued in our joint article that the facilitated consensus model of clinical ethics consultation is incomplete because it does not address the problem of what we have called {"}unsettled cases.{"} Sabrina Derrington and April Dworetz, Mark Aulisio, and Al Jonsen have each usefully challenged our claims and conclusions. In this brief article we respond to some of their arguments.",

author = "Adams, {David M.} and Winslade, {William J.}",

year = "2011",

doi = "10.1086/jce201122408",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "22",

pages = "358--362",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Ethics",

issn = "1046-7890",

publisher = "University of Chicago Press",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Final comments

AU - Adams, David M.

AU - Winslade, William J.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - We argued in our joint article that the facilitated consensus model of clinical ethics consultation is incomplete because it does not address the problem of what we have called "unsettled cases." Sabrina Derrington and April Dworetz, Mark Aulisio, and Al Jonsen have each usefully challenged our claims and conclusions. In this brief article we respond to some of their arguments.

AB - We argued in our joint article that the facilitated consensus model of clinical ethics consultation is incomplete because it does not address the problem of what we have called "unsettled cases." Sabrina Derrington and April Dworetz, Mark Aulisio, and Al Jonsen have each usefully challenged our claims and conclusions. In this brief article we respond to some of their arguments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855974377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855974377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/jce201122408

DO - 10.1086/jce201122408

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84855974377

SN - 1046-7890

VL - 22

SP - 358

EP - 362

JO - Journal of Clinical Ethics

JF - Journal of Clinical Ethics

IS - 4

ER -

Final comments

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this