Abstract
How may clinical ethics committees (CECs) inspire ethical reflection among healthcare professionals? How may they deal with organizational ethics issues? In recent years, Norwegian CECs have attempted different activites that stretch or go beyond the standard trio of education, consultation, and policy work. We studied the novel activities of Norwegian CECs by examining annual reports and interviewing CEC members. Through qualitative analysis we identified nine categories of novel CEC activities, which we describe by way of examples. In light of the findings, we argue that some novel working methods may be well suited to promote ethical reflection among clinicians, and that the CEC may be a suitable venue for discussing issues of organizational ethics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A report of the Council’s discussion can be found at http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/saker/cf-legemiddel.
Budstikka, May 3rd, 2013 (http://www.budstikka.no/nyheter/frykter-kutt-pa-30-millioner-vil-ramme-pasientene-1.7872108).
Ibid.
Ibid.
References
Bayley, C. (2006). Ethics committee DX: Failure to thrive. HEC Forum, 18(4), 357–367.
Blake, D. C. (2000). Reinventing the healthcare ethics committee. HEC Forum, 12(1), 8–32.
Bruce, C. R., Peña, A., Kusin, B. B., Allen, N. G., Smith, M. L., & Majumder, M. A. (2014). An embedded model for ethics consultation: Characteristics, outcomes, and challenges. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 5(3), 8–18.
DeRenzo, E. G., Mokwunye, N., & Lynch, J. J. (2006). Rounding: How everyday ethics can invigorate a hospital’s ethics committee. HEC Forum, 18(4), 319–331.
Førde, R., & Pedersen, R. (2011). Clinical ethics committees in Norway: What do they do, and does it make a difference? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20(3), 389–395.
Førde, R., & Pedersen, R. (2012a). Evaluation of case consultations in clinical ethics committees. Clinical Ethics, 7(1), 45–50.
Førde, R., & Pedersen, R. (2012b). Manual for clinical ethics committees in specialist health services. Oslo: Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo.
Førde, R., Pedersen, R., & Akre, V. (2008). Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: A qualitative study. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 11(1), 17–25.
Førde, R., & Ruud Hansen, T. W. (2014). Do organizational and clinical ethics in a hospital setting need different venues? HEC Forum, 26(2), 147–158.
Fox, E., Bottrell, M., Berkowitz, K., Chanko, B., Foglia, M., & Pearlman, R. (2010). IntegratedEthics: An innovative program to improve ethics quality in health care. Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1–36.
Larsen, B., Andersson, H., & Førde, R. (2013). Pasientautonomi er ingen enkel sak. Tidsskr nor legeforen, 133(18), 1955–1957.
Magelssen, M., Åsten, P., Godal, E., Os, E., Smith, A., Solås, H. R., et al. (2012). Blood sampling from dying patients: An ethical dilemma. Clinical Ethics, 7(3), 107–110.
Magelssen, M., Førde, R., & Pedersen, R. (2014). Sources of bias in clinical ethics case deliberation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(10), 678–682.
McCruden, P., & Kuczewski, M. (2006). Is organizational ethics the remedy for failure to thrive? Toward an understanding of mission leadership. HEC Forum, 18(4), 342–348.
Miljeteig, I., Skrede, S., Langørgen, J., Haaverstad, R., Jøsendal, O., Sjursen, H., et al. (2013). Skal rusmiddelavhengige pasienter tilbys hjerteklaffkirurgi for andre gang? Tidsskr nor legeforen, 133(9), 977–980.
Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2011). National Mandate for Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) in Norwegian Health Trusts.
Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2014). NOU 2014:12: Åpent og rettferdig–prioriteringer i helsetjenesten. Oslo.
Pedersen, R., Akre, V., & Førde, R. (2009). Barriers and challenges in clinical ethics consultations: The experiences of nine clinical ethics committees. Bioethics, 23(8), 460–469.
Schildmann, J., & Vollmann, J. (2010). Evaluation of clinical ethics consultation: A systematic review and critical appraisal of research methods and outcome criteria. In J. Schildmann, J.-S. Gordon, & J. Vollmann (Eds.), Clinical ethics consultation: Theories–methods–evaluation (pp. 203–215). Farnham: Ashgate.
Funding
The authors’ research on the Norwegian clinical ethics committees is funded by the Norwegian Directorate of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Magelssen, M., Pedersen, R. & Førde, R. Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection. HEC Forum 28, 205–216 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-015-9291-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-015-9291-7