Bioethics in a Global Village

One goal of the transplant community is to seek ways to increase the number of people who are willing and able to donate organs. People in states between life and death are often medically excellent candidates for donating organs. Yet public policy surrounding organ procurement is a delicate matter. While there is the utilitarian goal of increasing organ supply, there is also the deontologic concern about respect for persons. Public policy must properly mediate between these two concerns. Currently the dead donor (dd) rule is appealed to as an attempt at such mediation. I argue that given the lack of consensus on a definition of death, the dd rule is no longer successful at mediating utilitarian and deontologic concerns. I suggest instead that focusing on a particular person's history can be successful.     

"Facilitated consensus," "ethics facilitation," and unsettled cases

In "Consensus, Clinical Decision Making, and Unsettled Cases:' David M. Adams and William J.Winslade' make multiple references to both editions of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation in their discussion of two assumptions that are supposed to be at the heart of the facilitated consensus model's inability to handle unsettled cases; that is, that: 1. Consultants "should maintain a kind of moral impartiality or neutrality throughout the process," "explicitly condemn[ing] anything resembling a substantive 'ethics' recommendation, and 2. "What counts as the proper set of allowable options among which the parties are to deliberate will itself always be clearly discernible' Herein, I argue that neither of these assumptions is required by ASBH's ethics facilitation approach. I then conclude by suggesting that, despite their fundamentally mistaken interpretation of the ASBH approach-perhaps even because of it-Adams and Winslade have made two important contributions to the ethics consultation literature.     

Medical malpractice, mistake prevention, and compensation.

Clinicians' fear of malpractice litigation is the most significant obstacle to the open reporting of medical mistakes. Without open reporting of medical mistakes, however, root cause analysis of mistakes cannot be done, thus undermining efforts to implement safeguards to minimize the occurrence of future mistakes. Efforts to prevent medical mistakes, therefore, must first directly address clinicians' fear of malpractice litigation. In this paper, we explore the relationship between the current malpractice system and clinicians' fear of litigation. Ultimately, we argue that both the prevention of medical mistakes and the goals of malpractice litigation itself will be better served if substantial malpractice reform is undertaken.