Listening to the critics: a response to "Clinical ethics revisited"

First paragraph (this article has no abstract)

The signal value of Singer, Siegler, and Pellagrino's article, "Clinical ethics revisited," [1; http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/2/1 webcite] appears to lie in its recognition of the subdiscipline as the authors define it. Certainly, a series of critiques posted with the article [2] question the article's central thrust, that while clinical ethics remains a developing field of medicine that its general tenants are sound. Most damning, perhaps, is the original author's admission that, "if the goal of clinical ethics is to improve patient care and outcomes, there is scant evidence this has been achieved." If that is true - and it is a point upon which both critics and authors agree - then arguing as do Singer et al. for increased funding, more research, and a stronger educational posture is at best premature.