First judgement on clinical ethics committees?

2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-320462
Author(s):  
Robert Wheeler
2021 ◽  
pp. 147775092110341
Author(s):  
Priscilla Alderson ◽  
Deborah Bowman ◽  
Joe Brierley ◽  
Martin J. Elliott ◽  
Romana Kazmi ◽  
...  

This discussion paper considers how seldom recognised theories influence clinical ethics committees. A companion paper examined four major theories in social science: positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism, which can encourage legalistic ethics theories or practical living bioethics, which aims for theory–practice congruence. This paper develops the legalistic or living bioethics themes by relating the four theories to clinical ethics committee members’ reported aims and practices and approaches towards efficiency, power, intimidation, justice, equality and children’s interests and rights. Different approaches to framing ethical questions are also considered. Being aware of the four theories’ influence can help when seeking to understand and possibly change clinical ethics committee routines. The paper is not a research report but is informed by a recent study in two London paediatric cardiac units. Forty-five practitioners and related experts were interviewed, including eight members of ethics committees, about the work of informing, preparing and supporting families during the extended process of consent to children’s elective heart surgery. The mosaic of multidisciplinary teamwork is reported in a series of papers about each profession, including this one on bioethics and law and clinical ethics committees’ influence on clinical practice. The qualitative social research was funded by the British Heart Foundation, in order that more may be known about the perioperative views and needs of all concerned. Questions included how disputes can be avoided, how high ethical standards and respectful cooperation between staff and families can be encouraged, and how minors’ consent or refusal may be respected, with the support of clinical ethics committees.


2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2021-321735
Author(s):  
Thor Willy Ruud Hansen ◽  
Reidun Førde

BMJ ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 321 (7262) ◽  
pp. 649-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.-M. Slowther

2021 ◽  
pp. 096973302110032
Author(s):  
Morten Magelssen ◽  
Heidi Karlsen

Background: Ought nursing homes to establish clinical ethics committees (CECs)? An answer to this question must begin with an understanding of how a clinical ethics committee might be beneficial in a nursing home context – to patients, next of kin, professionals, managers, and the institution. With the present article, we aim to contribute to such an understanding. Aim: We ask, in which ways can clinical ethics committees be helpful to stakeholders in a nursing home context? We describe in depth a clinical ethics committee case consultation deemed successful by stakeholders, then reflect on how it was helpful. Research design: Case study using the clinical ethics committee’s written case report and self-evaluation form, and two research interviews, as data. Participants and research context: The nursing home’s ward manager and the patient’s son participated in research interviews. Ethical considerations: Data were collected as part of an implementation study. Clinical ethics committee members and interviewed stakeholders consented to study participation, and also gave specific approval for the publication of the present article. Findings/results: Six different roles played by the clinical ethics committee in the case consultation are described: analyst, advisor, support, moderator, builder of consensus and trust, and disseminator. Discussion: The case study indicates that clinical ethics committees might sometimes be of help to stakeholders in moral challenges in nursing homes. Conclusions: Demanding moral challenges arise in the nursing home setting. More research is needed to examine whether clinical ethics committees might be suitable as ethics support structures in nursing homes and community care.


Author(s):  
Chiara Crico ◽  
Virginia Sanchini ◽  
Paolo Giovanni Casali ◽  
Gabriella Pravettoni

AbstractClinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs’ performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs’ effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher’s Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs’ functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs’ efficacy, but 33% of studies considered “user satisfaction” as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs’ impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs’ evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation.


HEC Forum ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Magelssen ◽  
Reidar Pedersen ◽  
Reidun Førde

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Herreros ◽  
Venktesh R Ramnath ◽  
Laura Bishop ◽  
Emilio Pintor ◽  
María Dolores Martín ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document