As is their publishing practice, the American Journal of Bioethics recently invited submissions for an Open Peer Commentary to an article they plan to publish in the next few months. The article is entitled “A Pilot Evaluation of Portfolios for Quality Attestation of Clinical Ethics Consultants” and authored by Joseph J. Fins, MD, Eric Kodish, MD, and the other members of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) Quality Attestation Presidential Task Force (QAPTF). This paper is a sequel to their earlier paper “Quality Attestation for Clinical Ethics Consultants: A Two-Step Model from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities” which was published in The Hastings Report. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092588] The first paper described the ASBH plans to “attest” to the “quality” of self-identified, randomly-selected pilot clinical ethics consultants who submit a “portfolio” illustrating their consultation activities. When the article appears, all involved in clinical ethics consultation and the training of future clinical ethics consultants should read the paper. The QAPTF and the ASBH should be congratulated for doing this work and sponsoring the activity.
However, in thinking through this process again, one wonders how much of this is about the past and not about the future. Shouldn’t any process be more prospective and less retrospective? Maybe this is not possible? But how important is it really to show that people who are currently offering clinical ethics consultation services and recording their efforts in portfolios for other “experts” to review and compare do their consultations satisfactorily? Will this “attestation” somehow change their employment or practice circumstances or patterns? Will their employers dismiss them if they fail to obtain “attestation” status and hire clinical ethics consultants are meet the attestation standard? Will it add public recognition? In truth, is “attestation” really a quality standard that matters?