AbstractLong before a clinical ethicist can make recommendations in any given case, they must establish a foundational understanding of the pertinent medical facts informing the ethical dilemma. In this article, we encourage clinical ethicists to employ a practice we term curious engagement to identify and address incomplete and incorrect information that may present itself in the ethics consultation process. We illustrate our methodology by reflecting on a composite case drawn from our own consultative work and highlighting other scenarios in which clinical ethicists may encounter problematic situations. Under the rubric of curious engagement, we provide guidance for how best to navigate false predicates while maintaining sensitivity to patient safety and professional boundaries.
Goff et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: