Abstract

This chapter critically reflects on the critiques, reviews, and many proposals presented in Parts Two, Three, and Four, and provides a summary conclusion for the entire Zadeh Project. Obvious differences between experience and reporting on experience are highlighted, with particular attention to the ways such differences are detailed by the Zadeh Scenario and in our colleagues’ responses to it. In addition, we discuss a key challenge associated with clinical ethics practice and the peer review of such practice: identifying what actually matters for those engaged in these kinds of activities. In each case, we argue, the work of discovering what matters to the individuals actually involved cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, that work may even be the primary ingredient to responsible conduct for both consultation and peer review. Building on this idea that responding responsibly to that which is actually encountered in clinical practice serves as a primary activity of, and thus grounds responsibility in, clinical ethics practice, we then argue that ethical analysis of Finder’s activities in the Zadeh Scenario, and for clinical ethics peer review more generally, has at least three layers: that which addresses the immediate interactions between an ethics consultant and those whom the consultant engages; that which addresses the ethics consultant’s own sense of self-responsibility; that which addresses peer reviewers’ own frames for evaluating another’s clinical ethics practice. We conclude that the Zadeh Project exemplifies what is at stake in ethics consultation and peer review. Taken as a whole, then, the Zadeh Project reveals how peer review, in acknowledgement of the responsibility to create a context for peer education, rests upon a commitment to model – and demand critical engagement with – what is held to be most worthwhile for clinical ethics practice and the field of clinical ethics consultation as a whole.