Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Enhancing the moral space offered by critical dialogue: negotiating shared goals and target-centred virtue ethics
  1. Thomas Donaldson
  1. School of Law, University of Manchester Manchester School of Law, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Donaldson; thomas.donaldson-2{at}postgrad.manchester.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

I wish to congratulate Delany, Feldman, Kameniar and Gillam for their article ‘Critical dialogue method of ethics consultation: making clinical ethics facilitation visible and accessible’.1 The authors argue for critical dialogue as an alternative to ‘top-down’ ethics consultation processes, seeking to avoid the authoritative imposition of theory-based resolutions, and instead include the values and perspectives of clinicians, patients and relatives in the dialogue. In particular, their emphasis on the creation of ‘moral space’1 to actively involve clinicians, patients and relatives as moral agents is something that we wish to develop in our clinical ethics committee. The authors quite rightly point out that this has the potential to facilitate the moral growth of participants in the ethics consultation dialogue.1 To enhance how it assists the moral growth of participants, critical dialogue could draw resources from an ethical system focused on the development of moral character, such as virtue ethics.

Furthermore, virtue ethics could provide a moral framework for critical dialogue, which in its current form lacks explicit and …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @TomDonaldson100

  • Contributors TD is the sole author and guarantor of this manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles