Literature DB >> 24647554

Do organizational and clinical ethics in a hospital setting need different venues?

Reidun Førde1, Thor Willy Ruud Hansen.   

Abstract

The structure of ethics work in a hospital is complex. Professional ethics, research ethics and clinical ethics committees (CECs) are important parts of this structure, in addition to laws and national and institutional codes of ethics. In Norway all hospital trusts have a CEC, most of these discuss cases by means of a method which seeks to include relevant guidelines and laws into the discussion. In recent years many committees have received more cases which have concerned questions of principle. According to Ellen Fox and co-authors the traditional CEC model suffers from a number of weaknesses. Therefore, in their organization a separate body deals with organizational matters. In this paper, we discuss what is gained and what is lost by creating two separate bodies doing ethics consultation. We do this through an analysis of detailed minutes of CEC discussions in one CEC during a 6-year period. 30 % of all referrals concerned matters of principle. Some of these discussions originated in a dilemma related to a particular patient. Most of the discussions had some consequences within the hospital organization, for clinical practice, for adjustment of guidelines, or may have influenced national policy. We conclude that a multiprofessional CEC with law and ethics competency and patient representation may be well suited also for discussion of general ethical principles. A CEC is a forum which can help bridge the gap between clinicians and management by increasing understanding for each others' perspectives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24647554     DOI: 10.1007/s10730-014-9237-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HEC Forum        ISSN: 0956-2737


  9 in total

1.  Why don't physicians use ethics consultation?

Authors:  L Davies; L D Hudson
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  1999

2.  Balancing the perspectives. The patient's role in clinical ethics consultation.

Authors:  Stella Reiter-Theil
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2003

3.  Mixed feelings: physicians' concerns about clinical ethics committees in Germany.

Authors:  Andrea Dörries
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2003-09

4.  Supporting tough decisions in Norway: a healthcare system approach.

Authors:  Berit Mørland; Anen Ringard; John-Arne Røttingen
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Clinical ethics, information, and communication: review of 31 cases from a clinical ethics committee.

Authors:  R Førde; I H Vandvik
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Clinicians' evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Reidun Førde; Reidar Pedersen; Victoria Akre
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2007-10-02

7.  Sources of bias in clinical ethics case deliberation.

Authors:  Morten Magelssen; Reidar Pedersen; Reidun Førde
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Clinical ethics committees in Norway: what do they do, and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Reidun Førde; Reidar Pedersen
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Education and the improvement of clinical ethics services.

Authors:  George J Agich
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 2.463

  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection.

Authors:  Morten Magelssen; Reidar Pedersen; Reidun Førde
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2015-08-07

2.  Ethical challenges assessed in the clinical ethics Committee of Psychiatry in the region of Southern Denmark in 2010-2015: a qualitative content analyses.

Authors:  H Bruun; S G Lystbaek; E Stenager; L Huniche; R Pedersen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting.

Authors:  Morten Magelssen; Ingrid Miljeteig; Reidar Pedersen; Reidun Førde
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.652

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.