A national study of ethics committees

Conceived as a solution to clinical dilemmas, and now required by organizations for hospital accreditation, ethics committees have been subject only to small-scale studies. The wide use of ethics committees and the diverse roles they have played compel study. In 1999 the University of Pennsylvania Ethics Committee Research Group (ECRG) completed the first national survey of the presence, composition, and activities of U.S. healthcare ethics committees (HECs). Ethics committees are relatively young, on average seven years in operation. Eighty-six percent of ethics committees report that they played a role in ongoing clinical decision making through clinical ethics consultation. All are engaged in developing institutional clinical policy. Although 4.5% of HECs write policy on managed care, 50% of HEC chairs feel inadequately prepared to address managed care. The power and activity of ethics committees parallels the composition of those committees and the relationship of members to their institutions. The role of ethics committees across the nation in making policies about clinical care is greater than was known, and ethics committees will likely continue to play an important role in the debate and resolution of clinical cases and clinical policies.     

Clinical Ethics Consultation in the Transition Countries of Central and Eastern Europe

Science and Engineering Ethics - Since 1989, clinical ethics consultation in form of hospital ethics committees (HECs) was established in most of the transition countries of Central and Eastern...     

Responding to JCAHO standards: everybody's business.

At this stage, JCAHO [Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations] site visitors simply want to know how the institution plans to respond to the organization ethics standard. In the near future, however, they will expect data on how ethical issues have been addressed that faced the organization in marketing, billing, managed care contracts, and so on. Pointing to an organizational code of ethics will not be enough. Examples of leadership utilizing the processes of the committee or an appropriate consultant or group, to the ends of education, policy studies, and consultation on specific choices will meet the standard. Organizations that evade or choose not to supply data along these lines will presumably be negatively evaluated. Noncompliance presumably means a risk to accreditation. The message to the clinical ethics committee is a serious one. We must engage in the regional planning and organization needed to provide education and training needed by ethics committees for these two tasks, within the constraints of realism, that is, that these are requirements that are primarily expected of the clinical community and the organizations that provide care to patients.     

Are the Votes of Ethics Committees in Germany for the Protection of Clinical Study Trial Subjects “Sovereign Acts?”

A sudden paradigm shift has resulted in governmental measures that greatly impact the scope in which the ethics committees in Germany can perform their task of providing expert opinions for clinical research. The so-called “revaluation” of the Medical Device Law Deutsches Medizinproduktegesetz—MPG) is, in our opinion, not based on sound political and professional judgment. In accordance with the changed regulations, ethics committees are now seen as being sub-organs of the state medical associations or the medical faculties and are therefore official authorities. It follows that the votes of ethics committees are then “sovereign acts” or authoritative measures! However, equality and justice speak against this misleading conclusion and its resulting consequence that an ethics committee’s vote is a sovereign act. This has, in turn, resulted in the public ethics committees obtaining their long-sought goal of having a state-sanctioned monopoly. The private ethics committees are not recognized as being authoritative bodies, nor are they to be seen as such in the future (i.e. such a status has been denied the Freiburg Ethics Commission International (FEKI) in Baden-Württemberg). This political mistake must be corrected, otherwise, conducting clinical research will become increasingly difficult.     

Health Care Chaplains and their Role on Institutional Ethics Committees: An Australia Study

This paper presents the results of the largest Australian pastoral study concerning the perceptions of health care chaplains about their involvement on hospital research ethics committees (also known in some contexts as institutional ethics committees). Survey results from over 300 Australian health care chaplains indicated that nearly 90% of chaplains believed there was merit in chaplains serving on hospital research ethics committees, yet only a minority (22.7%) had ever participated on such committees. Data from in-depth interviews is also presented exploring the reasons for the lack of participation and the varying opinions regarding the role, appropriateness, and value of chaplains on ethics committees. Some implications of this study with respect to chaplaincy, hospital research ethics committees, health care institutions, ecclesiastical institutions, and government responsibilities are discussed.     

A Code of Ethics for Health Care Ethics Consultants: Journey to the Present and Implications for the Field

For decades a debate has played out in the literature about who bioethicists are, what they do, whether they can be considered professionals qua bioethicists, and, if so, what professional responsibilities they are called to uphold. Health care ethics consultants are bioethicists who work in health care settings. They have been seeking guidance documents that speak to their special relationships/duties toward those they serve. By approving a Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Health Care Ethics Consultants, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has moved the professionalization debate forward in a significant way. This first code of ethics focuses on individuals who provide health care ethics consultation (HCEC) in clinical settings. The evolution of the code's development, implications for the field of HCEC and bioethics, and considerations for future directions are presented here.     

A new role for psychologists--hospital ethics committees

Over the past decade psychology has begun to appreciate that it represents more than "merely mental health care" and has become increasingly involved in the generic health care arena. The participation of psychologists in Hospital Ethics Committees (HECs) is presented as a professional activity for which psychologists are particularly well suited. The clinical mission of HECs, the historical importance of ethical considerations to psychology, and the field's specific training and psycho-social expertise suggest valuable contributions that psychologists can make in this particular area. Further, as psychology actively increases its participation in HECs, other professional disciplines outside of the mental health field will systematically have the opportunity to become more familiar with psychology and its clinical and research expertise.     

The clinical ethicist at the bedside

In this paper we attempt to show how the goal of resolving moral problems in a patient's care can best be achieved by working at the bedside. We present and discuss three cases to illustrate the art and science of clinical ethics consultation. The sine qua non of the clinical ethics consultant is that he or she goes to the patient's bedside to obtain specific clinical and ethical information. Unlike ethics committees, which often depend on secondhand information from a physician or nurse, clinical ethics consultants personally speak with and examine patients and review their laboratory data and medical records. The skills of the clinical ethics consultant include the ability to delineate and resolve ethical problems in a particular patient's case and to teach other health professionals to build their own frameworks for clinical ethical decision making. When the clinical situation requires it, clinical ethics consultants can and should assist primary physicians with case management.     

Training in clinical ethics: launching the clinical ethics immersion course at the Center for Ethics at the Washington Hospital Center

In May 2011, the clinical ethics group of the Center for Ethics at Washington Hospital Center launched a 40-hour, three and one-half day Clinical Ethics Immersion Course. Created to address gaps in training in the practice of clinical ethics, the course is for those who now practice clinical ethics and for those who teach bioethics but who do not, or who rarely, have the opportunity to be in a clinical setting. "Immersion" refers to a high-intensity clinical ethics experience in a busy, urban, acute care hospital. During the Immersion Course, participants join clinical ethicists on working rounds in intensive care units and trauma service. Participants engage in a videotaped role-play conversation with an actor. Each simulated session reflects a practical, realistic clinical ethics case consultation scenario. Participants also review patients' charts, and have small group discussions on selected clinical ethics topics. As ethics consultation requests come into the center, Immersion Course participants accompany clinical ethicists on consultations. Specific to this pilot, because participants' evaluations and course faculty impressions were positive, the Center for Ethics will conduct the course twice each year. We look forward to improving the pilot and establishing the Immersion Course as one step towards addressing the gap in training opportunities in clinical ethics.     

The challenge of measuring community values in ways appropriate for setting health care priorities

The move from a notion that community values ought to play a role in health care decision making to the creation of health care policies that in some way reflect such values is a challenging one. No single method will adequately measure community values in a way appropriate for setting health care priorities. Consequently, multiple methods to measure community values should be employed, thereby allowing the strengths and weaknesses of the various methods to complement each other. A preliminary research agenda to bring together empirical research on community values with more traditional research on health care ethics is outlined, with the goal of identifying and measuring acceptable community values that are relatively consistent across measurement methods and, ultimately, developing ways to incorporate these values into health care priority decision making.     

The ethics activities of the World Medical Association

Since its formation in 1947, the World Medical Association (WMA) has been a leading voice in international medical ethics. The WMA’s principal ethics activity over the years has been policy development on a wide variety of issues in medical research, medical practice and health care delivery. With the establishment of a dedicated Ethics Unit in 2003, the WMA’s ethics activities have intensified in the areas of liaison, outreach and product development. Initial priorities for the Ethics Unit have been the review of paragraph 30 of the Declaration of Helsinki, the expansion of the Ethics Unit section of the WMA website and the development of an ethics manual for medical students everywhere. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an international conference, “The Ethics of Intellectual Property Rights and Patents,” held in Warsaw, Poland on 23–24 April, 2004.     

The Low Risk Research Ethics Application Process at CQUniversity Australia

The CQUniversity Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) is a human ethics research committee registered under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council. In 2009 an external review of CQUniversity Australia’s HREC policies and procedures recommended that a low risk research process be available to the institution’s researchers. Subsequently, in 2010 the Human Research Ethics Committee Low Risk Application Procedure came into operation. This paper examines the applications made under the Human Research Ethics Committee Low Risk Application Procedure during the course of 2010 and 2011. The paper contributes to the literature analyzing the decision-making processes of research review committees through an analysis of the quantitative data relating to the low risk research applications made and through discourse analysis of the qualitative data represented by the assessment comments of the members of the Committee.     

Legal briefing: Healthcare ethics committees

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as "death panels." But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified their roles concerning both end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories: 1. Existence and availability. 2. Membership and composition. 3. Operating procedures. 4. Advisory roles. 5. Decision-making and gate-keeping roles. 6. Confidentiality. 7. Immunity. 8. Litigation and court cases.     

Juggling Through Hoops: Implementing Ethics Policies in Applied Language Studies

This article reports on a collective effort to position ethics policies within the context of a specific discipline – Applied Language Studies (ALS). Through a discussion of challenges to ALS-specific pedagogical and research practices, this article highlights (1) the need for consistency across institutional Research Ethics Boards in the application of general principles of ethics review, and (2) the recognition of local considerations that are informed by disciplinary approaches not envisioned in current ethics policies. Ethics policies that are driven by substantive ethical intent will recognize pedagogical practices, research methodologies, and epistemological values and traditions that mark a discipline.     

Discriminating Against “Organ Takers”

This paper offers an exposition of what the question of method in ethics consultation involves under two conditions: when ethics consultation is regarded as a practice and when the question of method is treated systematically. It discusses the concept of the practice and the importance of rules in constituting the actions, cognition, and perceptions of practitioners. The main body of the paper focuses on three elements of the question of method: canon, discipline, and history, which are treated heuristically to outline what the question of method in ethics consultation fully involves.     

“The Notion of Neutrality in Clinical Ethics Consultation”

Clinical ethics consultation (CEC), as an activity that may be provided by clinical ethics committees and consultants, is nowadays a well-established practice in North America. Although it has been increasingly implemented in Europe and elsewhere, no agreement can be found among scholars and practitioners on the appropriate role or approach the consultant should play when ethically problematic cases involving conflicts and uncertainties come up. In particular, there is no consensus on the acceptability of consultants making recommendations, offering moral advice upon request, and expressing personal opinions. We translate these issues into the question of whether the consultant should be neutral when performing an ethics consultation. We argue that the notion of neutrality 1) functions as a hermeneutical key to review the history of CEC as a whole; 2) may be enlightened by a precise assessment of the nature and goals of CEC; 3) refers to the normative dimension of CEC. Here, we distinguish four different meanings of neutrality: a neutral stance toward the parties involved in clinical decision making, toward the arguments offered to frame the discussion, toward the values and norms involved in the case, and toward the outcome of decision making, that is to say the final decision and action that will be implemented. Lastly, we suggest a non-authoritarian way to intend the term “recommendation” in the context of clinical ethics consultation.     

Ethics of caring and the institutional ethics committee

Institutional ethics committees (lECs) in health care facilities now create moral policy, provide moral education, and consult with physicians and other health care workers. After sketching reasons for the development of IECs, this paper first examines the predominant moral standards it is often assumed lECs are now using, these standards being neo-Kantian principles of justice and utilitarian principles of the greatest good. Then, it is argued that a feminine ethics of care, as posited by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings, is an unacknowledged basis for /EC discussions and decisions. Further, it is suggested that feminine ethics of care can and should provide underlying theoretical tools and standards for lECs.     

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas in a Tertiary Care Veterinary Specialty Hospital: Adaptation of the Human Clinical Consultation Committee Model

Technological advances in veterinary medicine have produced considerable progress in the diagnosis and treatment of numerous diseases in animals. At the same time, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and owners of animals face increasingly complex situations that raise questions about goals of care and correct or reasonable courses of action. These dilemmas are frequently controversial and can generate conflicts between clients and health care providers. In many ways they resemble the ethical challenges confronted by human medicine and that spawned the creation of clinical ethics committees as a mechanism to analyze, discuss, and resolve disagreements. The staff of the North Carolina State University Veterinary Hospital, a specialty academic teaching institution, wanted to investigate whether similar success could be achieved in the tertiary care veterinary setting. We discuss the background and rationale for this method, as well as the approach that was taken to create a clinical ethics committee.     

Hospital ethics committees: One of many centers of responsibility

Ethical reality is coextensive with human dignity. Therefore, one essential way to understand ethics is as the systematic effort to discern the imperatives of human dignity. Seeing ethics in this way highlights the fact that health care institutions have many centers of ethical responsibility (CERs) — the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Trustees, senior management team, etc. The Ethics Committee is only one such CER and not the most important one. These other CERs will benefit from identifying: (1) the fact that they are consistently dealing with ethical reality and making ethical decisions; (2) some critical elements of good ethical decision-making: (i) having the appropriate community; (ii) making the guiding value priorities explicit and specific; (iii) gaining skill in using the needed intellectual tools; and (iv) fashioning appropriate process and structure for discernment.     

Ethical issues and approaches in stem cell research: from international insights to a proposal

In recent years and months, human stem cell research has dominated many scientists' interests, the media, public debate, and social policy. This paper aims to consider, first, the major scientific data on stem cell research that are available. Second, I reflect on them by examining how they shaped policies in Europe and the United States. I also point to current changes in policy-making concerning the creation of ad hoc committees to address this novel issue and how, in a few instances, different ethical positions are part of the documents produced. In other words, diverse approaches are not solved but kept in tension. Finally, I suggest that the current state of research on human stem cell will benefit from an ethics of risk.