Weaponizing principles: clinical ethics consultations & the plight of the morally vulnerable.

Internationally, there is an on-going dialogue about how to professionalize ethics consultation services (ECSs). Despite these efforts, one aspect of ECS-competence that has received scant attention is the liability of failing to adequately capture all of the relevant moral considerations in an ethics conflict. This failure carries a high price for the least powerful stakeholders in the dispute. When an ECS does not possess a sophisticated dexterity at translating what stakeholders say in a conflict into ethical concepts or principles, it runs the risk of naming one side's claims as morally legitimate and decrying the other's as merely self-serving. The result of this failure is that one side in a dispute is granted significantly more moral weight and authority than the other. The remedy to this problem is that ECSs learn how to expand the diagnostic moral lens they employ in clinical ethics conflicts.

Sperm and oocyte cryopreservation: comprehensive consent and the protection of patient autonomy.

Sperm cryopreservation and increasingly oocyte cryopreservation are common forms of fertility preservation for oncology patients facing gonadotoxic therapy. Both procedures present challenging ethical issues with regard to informed consent, given that the context for these procedures is a disease that carries a significant risk of mortality. We argue that the current consent process does not allow for adequate collection of information about a patient's wishes for the custody of cryopreserved gametes in the case of premature death. After review of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the American Society of Reproductive Medicine guidelines we propose that a new, comprehensive consent procedure for sperm and oocyte cryopreservation including a 'roll-down' option is imperative to protect the autonomy of these oncology patients. This 'roll-down' option should allow for the transfer of custody of gametes to a pre-selected alternative recipient(s) if the original recipient no longer intends to use the gametes to create a child. We also demonstrate that objections over non-spousal custody of gametes can be overcome with sound ethical arguments.

Ill-placed democracy: ethics consultations and the moral status of voting.

As groups around the country begin to craft standards for clinical ethics consultations, one focus of that work is the proper procedure for conducting ethics consults. From a recent empirical look into the workings of ethics consult services (ECSs), one worrisome finding is that some ECSs rely on a committee vote when making a recommendation. This article examines the practice of voting and its moral standing as a procedural strategy for arriving at a clinical ethics recommendation. I focus here on the type of clinical ethics conflicts that are most likely to lead an ECS to vote, namely, conflicts involving ethical uncertainty--or, in the Greek, aporia. I argue that in cases of aporia, voting on an ethics conflict is not a morally justifiable procedure. Then on the same grounds that I use to show that voting is ethically problematic, I raise broader concerns about the common practice of making recommendations by other procedures. In contrast to the standard approach of adjudicating between moral claims, I argue that ECSs can best resolve aporetic conflict through the process of clinical ethics mediation.