Abstract

This article presents a model for doing clinical ethics consultations. It describes four phases of a consultation: investigation, assessment, action, and review. The consultant must identify the problem and determine whether it is a nonmoral problem (e.g., lack of information) or a moral problem involving uncertainty or conflict. The consultant must be able to identify the types of moral arguments that are used by participants to the situation. A simplified taxonomy of moral arguments is presented. The consultant must then assess the arguments for their cogency and identify where they align and where they conflict. The action phase of the consultation involves finding ways for the arguments to be presented and hopefully reconciled. The normative limitations to the role of the consultant are described.