Some say it is possible, even necessary, to check our values at the door and remain neutral in clinical ethics consultation. For these scholars, compliance with standardized clinical ethics consultation methodology requires stepping outside of one’s own worldview into a no-man's-land of supposed value-neutrality. But this position is grounded in several unfounded assumptions: 1) a religious worldview can be set aside for the purposes of clinical ethics consultation, 2) those without religious worldviews are neutral, 3) standardized bioethical concepts are neutral with respect to worldview, 4) clinical ethics consultation can be done without appeal to worldview, in what Tristram Engelhardt calls a “secular space,” and 5) there exists something like what Engelhardt calls a “secular space.” In this paper I argue that value-neutral clinical ethics consultation is not what it claims to be but is rather just operationalizing another competing worldview in our pluralistic healthcare environment. I will further argue that value-neutrality in clinical ethics consultation is not possible, and to pretend the secular space is value-neutral actually smuggles in a host of quasi-religious values into the consultation encounter. This does not mean that clinical ethicists should give into practices of coercion or that they should enforce their vision of good moral outcomes on others. Rather, it means that clinical ethicists should interrogate and articulate their ethical commitments with the full knowledge of the limits to enforcing them in the public realm.