Patients from religious minorities can face unique challenges reconciling their beliefs with the values that undergird Western Medical Ethics. This paper explores homologies between approaches of Orthodox Judaism and Islam to medical ethics, and how these religions’ moral codes differ from the prevailing ethos in medicine. Through analysis of religious and biomedical literature, this work examines how Jewish and Muslim religious observances affect decisions about genetic counseling, reproductive health, pediatric medicine, mental health, and end-of-life decisions. These traditions embrace a theocentric rather than an autonomy-based ethics. Central to this conception is the view that life and the body are gifts from God rather than the individual and the primacy of community norms. These insights can help clinicians provide care that aligns Muslim and Jewish patients’ health goals with their religious beliefs and cultural values. Finally, dialogue in a medical context between these faith traditions provides an opportunity for rapprochement amidst geopolitical turmoil.

Drawing on pedagogical tools utilized in clinical scenario simulation and emergency preparedness training, the authors describe an innovative method for teaching clinical ethics consultation skills, which they call a “tabletop” exercise. Implemented at the end of a clinical ethics intensive course, the tabletop enables learners to implement the knowledge and practice the skills they gained during the course. The authors highlight the pedagogical tools on which the tabletop exercise draws, describe the tabletop exercise itself, offer how to best operationalize such an exercise, reflect on the method’s strengths and weaknesses, and provide insights for others who may want to implement their own tabletop for ethics consultation education.

Bioethics education in residency helps trainees achieve many of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones and gives them resources to respond to bioethical dilemmas. For this purpose, The Providence Center for Health Care Ethics has offered a robust clinical ethics rotation since 2000. The importance of bioethics for residents was highlighted as the COVID-19 pandemic raised significant bioethical concerns and moral distress for residents. This, combined with significant COVID-19-related practical stressors on residents led us to develop a virtual ethics rotation. A virtual rotation allowed residents flexibility as they were called to help respond to the unprecedented demands of a pandemic without compromising high quality education. This virtual rotation prioritized flexibility to support resident wellbeing and ethical analysis of resident experiences. This article describes how this rotation was able to serve residents without overstraining limited bandwidth, and address the loci of resident pandemic distress. As pandemic pressures lessened, The Providence Center for Health Care Ethics transitioned to a hybrid rotation which continues to prioritize resident wellbeing and analysis of ongoing stressors while incorporating in-person elements where they can improve learning. This article provides a description of the rotation in its final form and resident feedback on its effectiveness.

As Steve Kaminshine said in his comments at the symposium honoring Charity Scott, I was recruited to come to Georgia State University as a “Law and Bioethics” scholar who had spent more than sixteen years shuttling between an office in a hospital and another in a law school. But when I first visited Georgia State Law, I did not know that more than ten years earlier Charity Scott had spent the better part of an academic year living and breathing clinical ethics at Grady Memorial Hospital.1 Because of her usual habit of immersion in all learning experiences, in that year Charity gained more insight into how hospitals work and how physicians behave when they are knee deep in their professional milieu of life and death decision-making than many full-time bioethics academics do in a career. For the rest of her career Charity kept one foot well planted in the medical context, as an advisor in problems of research ethics, as a teacher in her own medical-legal partnership structured around real-life clinical problems, and as an ethical analyst who could never be accused of mouthing a mantra of phrases, the “vacuous incantation of abstract principles”2 that might pass for bioethics discourse in some circles.

Assent to medical research or treatment may be an intuitively attractive way to address the area between incapacity and capacity that might otherwise be subject to a best interests assessment. Assent has become a widely disseminated concept in law, research, and clinical ethics, but little conceptual work on assent has so far occurred. An exploration of use of assent in treatment and research in children and people with dementia suggests that at least five claims are made on behalf of assent. Since at least some of these may lead to tensions with others, assent requires firmer conceptual underpinning. Whether assent remains primarily a local approach to research in children in the United States, where it appears to fit with legal background conditions, or develops its promise to overturn the dominant, binary, approach to (in)capacity will depend on the strength of future philosophical work to improve the theoretical foundations to assent.

Transgender conversion practices involve attempts to alter, discourage, or suppress a person’s gender identity and/or desired gender presentation, including by delaying or preventing gender transition. Proponents of the practices have argued that they should be allowed until proven to be harmful. Drawing on the notion of expressive equality, I argue that conversion practices are prima facie unethical because they do not fulfill a legitimate clinical purpose and conflict with the self-understanding of trans communities.

One of the more draining aspects of being a clinical ethicist is dealing with the emotions of patients, family members, as well as healthcare providers. Generally, by the time a clinical ethicist is called into a case, stress levels are running high, patience is low, and interpersonal communication is strained. Management of this emotional burden of clinical ethics is an underexamined aspect of the profession and academic literature. The emotional nature of doing clinical ethics consultation may be better addressed by utilizing concepts and tools from clinical psychology. Management of countertransference, the natural emotional reaction by the therapist toward the patient, is a widely discussed topic in the psychotherapeutic literature. This concept can be adapted to the clinical ethics encounter by broadening it beyond the patient-therapist relationship to refer to the ethics consultant's emotional response toward the patient, the family, or other members the healthcare team. Further, it may aid the consultant because a recognition of the source and nature of these reactions can help maintain ‘critical distance’ and minimize bias in the same way that a psychologist maintains neutrality in psychotherapy. This paper will offer suggestions on how to manage these emotional responses and their burden in the clinical ethics encounter, drawing upon techniques and strategies recommended in the psychotherapeutic literature. Using these techniques may improve consultation outcomes and reduce the emotional burden on the clinical ethicist.

This article addresses questions surrounding the minimally conscious state (MCS) from the perspective of adult clinical ethics. It describes the background of the MCS diagnosis, analyzes phenomenological ambiguities inherent in the nature of MCS, and raises epistemological concerns surrounding its diagnosis. It argues that in many cases, the burdens of prolonging treatment for people who have sustained certain severe brain injuries (SBI) outweigh the benefits, even if they are in or have the prospect of entering into MCS. It also argues that often such long-term measures are problematic from the perspective of patient preferences and stewardship of resources. Consequently, it suggests that the delineation of MCS as a distinct neurological state, along with research that seeks to expand how MCS is diagnosed, poses ethical difficulties for families and providers making decisions for affected patients.

The number of older drivers will continue to increase as the population ages. Health care professionals have the responsibility of providing care and maintaining confidentiality for their patients while ensuring public safety. This article discusses the ethics of clinical decision-making pertaining to reporting health-related driving risk of older drivers to licensing authorities. Ethical considerations inherent in reporting driving risk, including autonomy, confidentiality, therapeutic relationships, and the uncertainty about determining individual driving safety and risk, are discussed. We also address the moral agency of reporting health-related driving risk and raise the question of whose responsibility it is to report. Issues of uncertainty surrounding clinical reasoning and concepts related to risk assessment are also discussed. Finally, we present two case studies to illustrate some of the issues and challenges faced by health care professionals as they seek to balance their responsibilities for their patients while ensuring road safety for all citizens.