Peace and Conflict Studies - Spring 2014

Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 21, Number 1 64 developed strategies to advance their cause. Some of the strategies discussed were to identify power figures and organizations to share their statement with, identify media connections, create a listserv/clearing house, and connect with other organizations. Conversation, led to action. Conclusion In spite of the many initiatives that have been initiated in the last decades directed at eliminating end-of-life care inequalities; these disparities continue to be prevalent in healthcare institutions in the United States. Conflict practitioners have not fully inserted themselves, nor are they usually invited, to these conversations due, in part, to a narrow approach to conflict that hinders the capacity to step out of a position of neutrality and use their skills and processes to challenge the status quo and unequal power relationships. For the most part, conflict practitioners are partaking in end-of-life conflict as a third party “neutral” through bioethics mediation whose role is to remain impartial and try to assist people in reaching a mutually agreeable solution to their problem or serving as trainers in CCTs. These approaches have made some progress in raising awareness, improving clinicians’ attitudes towards minorities, and increasing cultural competence. However, they have been less successful in addressing cultural and structural violence, reducing healthcare disparities, or improving healthcare outcomes (Betancourt & Greene, 2010; Rabinovich-Einy, 2011). Nearly a decade ago, Mayer (2004) invited conflict professionals to challenge their assumptions of neutrality and expand their role in helping people engage with conflict. Most recently, Hansen (2008) has also argued in favor of conflict practitioners taking “atypical” roles and serve as advocates, advisors, or any other role that allows marginalized individuals to challenge oppressive structures through constructive dialogue. These “atypical” roles, are more common among peacebuilding practitioners, but are less common among conflict practitioners. Being a third party neutral is still seen by conflict practitioners as a core part of their identity. Conflict practitioners continue to identify themselves by the role they have in a conflict as opposed to focusing on the purpose of the intervention (Mayer, 2012). As I have discussed in this article, hosting World Café conversations could be an excellent process for unveiling unequal power structures in end-of-life care. If conflict practitioners “let go” of their illusion of neutrality they could make significant contributions to reducing end-of-life care inequalities.