Janet Malek has recently argued that the religious worldview of the clinical ethics consultant should play no normative role in clinical ethics consultation. What are the theological implications of a normatively secular clinical ethics? I argue that Malek’s proposal constitutes an irreligious clinical ethics, which commits multiple metaphysical harms. First, I summarize Malek’s key claims for a secular clinical ethics. Second, I explicate both John Milbank’s notion of ontological violence and Timothy Murphy’s irreligious bioethics to show how they apply to Malek’s secular clinical ethics, resulting in an irreligious clinical ethics. Third, I then show how an irreligious clinical ethics commits metaphysical harms to patients, clinical ethics consultants, and the institution of clinical ethics consultation. I conclude that Malek’s proposal for an irreligious clinical ethics must be rejected to maintain the metaphysical integrity of clinical ethics consultants, patients, and the institution of clinical ethics consultation.

中文翻译：

---

监管崇高：非宗教临床伦理的形而上学危害

Janet Malek 最近认为临床伦理顾问的宗教世界观不应在临床伦理咨询中发挥规范作用。规范的世俗临床伦理的神学含义是什么？我认为，马利克的提议构成了一种非宗教的临床伦理，它会带来多种形而上学的危害。首先，我总结了马利克关于世俗临床伦理的主要主张。其次，我解释了约翰·米尔班克的本体暴力概念和蒂莫西·墨菲的非宗教生命伦理学，以展示它们如何适用于马利克的世俗临床伦理学，从而产生非宗教的临床伦理学。第三，然后我将展示非宗教的临床伦理如何对患者、临床伦理顾问和临床伦理咨询机构造成形而上学的伤害。