In den USA haben sich im Wesentlichen drei verschiedene Organisationsformen klinischer Ethikberatung entwickelt: der einzelne Berater, das große Komitee und das Beratungsteam teilweise mit Rückbindung an ein größeres Komitee. Bislang gibt es jedoch weder empirische Daten noch ein Ergebnis der anfänglichen theoretischen Diskussion, ob es ein favorisiertes Modell für die klinische Ethikberatung geben sollte und welches dieses sei. Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass die Vorzüge, Nachteile und die Erfolgsfaktoren der verschiedenen Organisationsformen in Abhängigkeit von der Zielsetzung klinischer Ethikdienste (KED) bewertet werden (...) müssen. Diese Zielsetzung kann auf einem Spektrum vom „Patientenanwalt“ bis zum „Gewissen der Institution“ angesiedelt sein. Die Zielsetzung bestimmt dabei Aufgabenschwerpunkte, Zusammensetzung, die favorisierte Organisationsform und wünschenswerte Standards. Die Untersuchung stützt sich zum einen auf die Analyse von Interviews mit fünf Vorsitzenden klinischer Ethikkomitees von Harvard Lehrkrankenhäusern in Boston, die jeweils etwa 20 Jahre Erfahrung in klinischer Ethikberatung mit den drei unterschiedlichen Modellen gemacht haben. Zum anderen basiert sie auf der Rezeption der Literatur und empirischen Studien zu KEDs in den USA und Deutschland. Insgesamt scheint das Konsilteam mit Rückbindung an ein Komitee am besten geeignet, die Behandlung einzelner Patienten und das ethische Bewusstsein einer ganzen Organisation zu verbessern. Es vereint die Vorteile der anderen beiden Modelle auf sich, ohne unter deren Schwächen zu leiden. (shrink)

Neuromarketing is a recent interdisciplinary field which crosses traditional boundaries between neuroscience, neuroeconomics and marketing research. Since this nascent field is primarily concerned with improving marketing strategies and promoting sales, there has been an increasing public aversion and protest against it. These protests can be exemplified by the reactions observed lately in Baylor School of Medicine and Emory University in the United States. The most recent attempt to stop ongoing neuromarketing research in France is also remarkable. The pertaining ethical issues (...) have been continuously attracting much attention, especially since the number of neuromarketing companies has exceeded 300 world-wide. This paper begins with a brief introduction to the field of neurotechnology by presenting its current capabilities and limitations. Then, it will focus on the ethical issues and debates most related with the recent applications of this technology. The French Parliament’s revision of rules on bioethics in 2004 has an exemplary role in our discussion. The proposal by Murphy et al. has attracted attention to the necessity of ethical codes structuring this field. A code has recently been declared by the Neuromarketing Science and Business Association. In this paper, it is argued that these technologies should be sufficiently discussed in public spheres and its use on humans should be fully carried out according to the ethical principles and legal regulations designed in line with human rights and human dignity. There is an urgent need in the interdisciplinary scientific bodies like ethics committees monitoring the research regarding the scientific and ethical values of nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, confidentiality, right to privacy and protection of vulnerable groups. (shrink)

In matters of discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment, traditional role of the family to speak on behalf of the incompetent patient is questionable. We explore the reasons why physicians perceive patient autonomy to be transferrable to family members. Principle of patient autonomy may not suffice when futile treatment is demanded and may serve to erode the ethical integrity of medical profession. An enhanced role for bioethics committees is proposed when physicians propose to discontinue life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient (...) or their families. (shrink)

Consensus is commonly identified as the goal of ethics committee deliberation, but it is not clear what is morally authoritative about consensus. Various problems with the concept of an ethics committee in a health care institution are identified. The problem of consensus is placed in the context of the debate about realism in moral epistemology, and this is shown to be of interest for ethics committees. But further difficulties, such as the fact that consensus at one level of discourse need (...) not imply consensus at another, oblige us to look more closely at the deliberative process itself. That yields two complementary methods of deliberation that have proven their worth. Finally, placing ethics committees in the context of Dewey's philosophy of social intelligence suggests that consensus should be regarded primarily as a condition rather than as the goal of inquiry. Keywords: ethics committee, consensus, moral authority CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

This survey describes in detail ethics committees (ECs) at acute care hospitals in Upstate New York. It finds that in just two years (1984 and 1985), following the Baby Doe controversy and the Report of the President’s Commission, 40% of urban ECs and 37% of university ECs were formed. One half of rural ECs formed in 1992–1995, following the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) requirement of access to ethics consultation. Generally, ECs are committees of the powerful within (...) the hospital; the administration or the medical staff is the organizational parent of 73% of ECs. These groups appoint 80% of EC chairs and 79% of members; they constitute 45% of the membership. Most EC members (81%) lack even rudimentary formal training in bioethics, yet only 18% of ECs consider member education a major role. Many ECs are rather inactive: 53% meet less than every other month and 61% have fewer than six case consultations in the prior year. On the basis of this survey’s findings, suggestions are offered to improve the credibility of these ubiquitous committees as stewards of bioethics, rather than of the powerful within the hospital. (shrink)

The need to evaluate the performance of clinical ethics services is widely acknowledged although work in this area is more developed in the United States. In the USA many studies that assess clinical ethics services have utilized empirical methods and assessment criteria. The value of these approaches is thought to rest on their ability to measure the value of services in a demonstrable fashion. However, empirical measures tend to lack ethical content, making their contribution to developments in ethical governance unclear. (...) The steady increase of clinical ethics committees in the UK must be accompanied by efforts to evaluate their performance. As part of this evaluative work it is important to examine how the practice of clinical ethics committees can be informed by empirical measures. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the need for hospital clinical ethics committees by studying the frequency with which ethical dilemmas arose, the perceived adequacy of the process of their resolution, and the teaching and training of staff in medical ethics. DESIGN: Interviews with individuals and three multidisciplinary teams; questionnaire to randomly selected individuals. SETTING: Two major London children's hospitals. RESULTS: Ethical dilemmas arose frequently but were resolved in a relatively unstructured fashion. Ethical concerns included: the validity of consent for investigations and treatment; (...) lack of children's involvement in consent; initiation of heroic or futile treatments; resource allocation. Staff expressed the need for a forum which would provide consultation on ethical issues, develop guidelines for good ethical practice, undertake teaching and training, and provide ethical reflection outside the acute clinical setting. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary, accountable and audited clinical ethics committees with predominantly advisory, practice development and educational roles could provide a valuable contribution to UK clinical practice and perhaps in other countries that have not developed hospital clinical ethics committees. (shrink)

There is a growing body of literature on the research ethics review process, a process that can have important effects on the nature of research in contemporary times. Yet, many people know little about what the actual process entails once an application has been submitted for review. This lack of knowledge can affect researchers and committee members' responses to the review process. Based on ethnographic research on the ethics review process in 5 countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, (...) and the United Kingdom) this article takes the reader through common aspects of the research ethics review process, including some of the kinds of narratives that influence decision making. Greater understanding of the nature of the review process and the narratives that often form the core of the process can help contextualize responses that researchers get from committees so they can better address them. It may also help committee members reflect on how these narratives influence their decision making and the responses they make to researchers. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultations are sometimes deemed complete at the moment when the consultants make a recommendation. In CECs that involve actual ethical conflict, this view of a consult's endpoint runs the risk of overemphasizing the conflict's resolution at the expense of the consult's process, which can have deleterious effects on the various parties in the conflict. This overly narrow focus on reaching a decision or recommendation in consults that involve profound moral disagreement can result in two types of adverse, lingering (...) sequelae: moral distress or negative moral emotions. The problem, succinctly named, is that such consults have insufficient “closure” for patients, families, and providers. To promote closure, and avoid the ills of moral distress and the moral emotions, I argue that CECs need to prioritize assisted conversation between the different stakeholders in these conflicts, what is often referred to as “bioethics mediation.”. (shrink)

Clinical 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. (shrink)

Research ethics committees—animal ethics committees for animal-based research and institutional research boards for human subjects—have a key role in research governance, but there has been little study of the factors influencing their effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to examine how the effectiveness of a research ethics committee is influenced by committee composition and dynamics, recruitment of members, workload, participation level and member turnover. As a model, 28 members of AECs at four universities in western Canada were interviewed. Committees (...) were selected to represent variation in the number and type of protocols reviewed, and participants were selected to include different types of committee members. We found that a bias towards institutional or scientific interests may result from a preponderance of institutional and scientist members, an intimidating atmosphere for community members and other minority members, recruitment of community members who are affiliated with the institution and members joining for reasons other than to fulfil the committee mandate. Thoroughness of protocol review may be influenced by heavy workloads, type of review process and lack of full committee participation. These results, together with results from the literature on research ethics committees, suggested potential ways to improve the effectiveness of research ethics committees. (shrink)

How closely involved with hospital ethics committees should patients and their families become? Should they routinely have access to committees, or be empowered to initiate consultations? To what extent should they be informed of the content or outcome of committee deliberations? Seeing ethics committees as the locus of competing responsibilities allows us to respond to the questions posed by a patient rights model and to acknowledge more fully the complex moral dynamics of clinical medicine.