Phenomenology, Saudi Arabia, and an argument for the standardization of clinical ethics consultation

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to make a philosophical argument against the phenomenological critique of standardization in clinical ethics. We used the context of clinical ethics in Saudi Arabia to demonstrate the importance of credentialing clinical ethicists. METHODS: Philosophical methods of argumentation and conceptual analysis were used. RESULTS: We found the phenomenological critique of standardization to be flawed because it relies on a series of false dichotomies. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the phenomenological framing of the credentialing debate relies upon two extreme views to be navigated between, not chosen among, in the credentialing of clinical ethicists.