【正文】 ervene in the negotiation, and in that they are indifferent as to the oute. At least in the medical context, however, mediation is better served by emphasizing the demand for client autonomy than by pursuing an elusive neutrality. The claim that a mediator must be neutral is based on two beliefs: that neutrality promotes trust, and that it reveals to the parties the presence of a middle ground fertile with options for settlement. Neutrality is usually thought of as more than impartiality。 Kevin Gibson.《 Mediation in the Medical Field .Is Neutral Intervention Possible? 》 ,[J], The Hastings Center Report,Vol. 29, No. 5 (Sep. Oct., 1999), pp. 613. Mediation in the Medical Field .Is Neutral Intervention Possible? Abstract Neutrality is held to be the touchstone of good mediation. True neutrality is elusive, however, and probably not even desirable, at least when applied to patientprovider disputes over medical care. In this context, mediators should not posture as “neutrals”。 while impartiality implies evenhandedness and lack of bias, neutrality involves distance from the substance of the dispute and the values involved. But whatever definition is adopted, discussions of neutrality in mediation have often assumed that the mediator can intervene neutrally and that the crux of the issue is the degree of intervention employed—in effect, how “handson” or “handsoff” the mediator should be. Leonard Marcus strikes the usual stance. In his examination of mediation in the medical field, Marcus argues that the issue of neutrality is critical. He takes neutrality to be a stance that favors neither side and that therefore allows the parties to admit the potential for a middle ground. He believes the mediator will have biases, but will be able to effectively mask them: the mediator is conscious of the fact that pure neutrality is a mix of myth and professional credo。s motivational structure and to make changes in that structure.” Dworkin asserts that autonomy is central to the nature of personhood because it is the locus of choice and responsibility. It is more than decisionmaking power, since the autonomous actor also must have the means to bring those decisions about. Simply deciding to choose medicine as a career or to elect surgery instead of drug therapy is a vacuous choice without the assent and collaboration of others who have the power to help realize those decisions. Thus one part of the mediator39。s job is to act as an educator, this naturally begs the question of whether education can take place in a valueneutral way. Any presentation by one individual to another is likely to be tempered by a point of view. Thus even the most evenhanded exposition will probably betray the values held by the author and color the views of a receptive audience. Given these facts, it might be thought that any form of education of a client in mediation is tantamount to implicit advocacy. However, I do not think that this has to be the case: there need not be any endorsement implied in laying out facts. Surely the exposition will manifest a point of view, but there are ways in which the power of a particular point of view can be muted. Certain verbal formulae can help make sure that a particular presentation is not didactic: “Take this for what it is worth,” “Some people have said … while others say …, “or “for the sake of argument, let me play devil 39。然而，真正的中立是難以捉摸的，可能不會甚至是可取的，至少在應用到患者提供醫(yī)療糾紛。其中一個最值得高度認可的是就是一種稱為 ADR 的調解模式 —— 涉及 通過缺乏決定權的第三方進行干預來替代原先的促進雙方之間的協商的方法。在政策層面上，調解可以用來解決那些組成的一個實驗程序管理保健管理人員和醫(yī)務人員之間的糾紛。這也是非常的，因為它通過各方努力成為非指導性的從而大大擴大了干預范圍。生 命倫理學調解應該尋求的是一個道義上的原則性的解決方案，而不僅僅是一個雙方都同意的一個，這可能意味著改變一些傳統(tǒng)調解的假設。假設一個工人要求加薪的雇主只有一個固定金額分配給工資，但工人實際上是承認和尊重。調解員應有助于各方溝通，他們的相關權益，重新塑造他們信奉的位置，產生令人滿意的選項。調解理論一般都聲稱至少三個相互聯系的要素是很重要的過程：在這個意義上的無黨派中立調解人在這個過程中，中立的調解員的冷漠感，結果，和保密。 但說白了，作為一個批評家充電，“明智的新客戶端自決和自治的想法是一致的，讓一方自由選擇被剝削的受害者。 盡管醫(yī)療調解的背景條件是不同的，賭注是往往高得多，而且決定可能會導致死亡，長期困擾，或陷入貧困。調解者強調的是，它們是中性的，因為它們不介入在談判，且對調解結果漠不關心。但是，在任何采用的定義中，討論的中立調解往往認為，調解員可以介入中立，問題的癥結是雇用的效果 ，如何“動手”或“放手”的干預程度調解員應掌握好。他認為，調解員有偏見，但同時其將能有效地掩蓋它們。 這里有兩個問題：首先，索賠的結果，質量與調解員的中立性是既不一定是真實的，也不需要進行自我證明，至少沒有更多的討論。因此，調解員的中立的質量不能被追溯診斷通過簡單地檢查的結果。 社會心理學的大量證據表明，調解員是很少的免疫偏差，而在同一時間，他們經常性地高估自己避免它們的能力。因此，它似乎中立的概念在理論上是困難的，幾乎是不可能的。只是決定選擇醫(yī)學作為一種職業(yè)或選擇手術，而不是藥物治療，沒有誰擁有的權力，以幫助實現這些決定他人的同意和協作是一個空洞的選擇。威逼利誘，他們說，發(fā)生“如果一方故意，并成功影響另一個不必要的和可避免的危害如此嚴重，人是無法抗拒采取行動，以避免它提出一個可信的威脅。說服限制訴諸理性的影響，而操作涉及偽裝成好的不好的原因還是貧窮的參數。例如，如果一個女人與心臟狀況想去蹦極，這將是適當的，以確保她 知道她的決定的潛在后果，但是一旦被建立，這是不合適的，拒絕了她的請求，她充分認識到她的行動。因此，即使是最公允的論述可能會背叛由作者和顏色接受觀眾的意見所持的價值 觀。某些口頭公式可以幫助確保，特定的表示是不是說教：“以此什么是值得的”，“有些人已經說 ...也有人說 ......，”或“論證的緣故，讓我扮演魔鬼代言人在這里。為了應對這種批評，我們可以看看教育理念。運動被批評，因為它似乎可以促進某些自由主義價值觀的幌子下，價值中立的批評類似的批評價值中立的調解。如果我們提倡發(fā)散思維，那么我們珍視創(chuàng)造力?！笔聦嵣?，很多老師做保持位置，有力的宣傳是適當的和必要的，為了對抗教條的信仰，可容納學生，只要意圖是不是強加一個特定的觀點，而是鼓勵在各方面提出