Abram Brummett1, Ruaim Muaygil2. 1. Department of Foundational Medical Studies, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, 3331 Squirrel Court, Auburn Hills, MI, 48326, USA. abrummett@oakland.edu. 2. College of Medicine, King Saud University and King Saud University Medical City, 6877 Ibrahim Ibn Hadi, Riyadh, 12476, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to make a philosophical argument against the phenomenological critique of standardization in clinical ethics. We used the context of clinical ethics in Saudi Arabia to demonstrate the importance of credentialing clinical ethicists. METHODS: Philosophical methods of argumentation and conceptual analysis were used. RESULTS: We found the phenomenological critique of standardization to be flawed because it relies on a series of false dichotomies. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the phenomenological framing of the credentialing debate relies upon two extreme views to be navigated between, not chosen among, in the credentialing of clinical ethicists.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to make a philosophical argument against the phenomenological critique of standardization in clinical ethics. We used the context of clinical ethics in Saudi Arabia to demonstrate the importance of credentialing clinical ethicists. METHODS: Philosophical methods of argumentation and conceptual analysis were used. RESULTS: We found the phenomenological critique of standardization to be flawed because it relies on a series of false dichotomies. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the phenomenological framing of the credentialing debate relies upon two extreme views to be navigated between, not chosen among, in the credentialing of clinical ethicists.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical ethics consultation; Credentialing; Phenomenology; Saudi Arabia
Authors: Salim A Baharoon; Hamdan H Al-Jahdali; Abdullah A Al-Sayyari; Hani Tamim; Yaser Babgi; Saeed M Al-Ghamdi Journal: Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl Date: 2010-05