Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of (...) requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation. (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)

Clinical ethics consultation, as an activity that may be provided by clinical ethics committees and consultants, is nowadays a well-established practice in North America. Although it has been increasingly implemented in Europe and elsewhere, no agreement can be found among scholars and practitioners on the appropriate role or approach the consultant should play when ethically problematic cases involving conflicts and uncertainties come up. In particular, there is no consensus on the acceptability of consultants making recommendations, offering moral advice upon request, (...) and expressing personal opinions. We translate these issues into the question of whether the consultant should be neutral when performing an ethics consultation. We argue that the notion of neutrality 1) functions as a hermeneutical key to review the history of CEC as a whole; 2) may be enlightened by a precise assessment of the nature and goals of CEC; 3) refers to the normative dimension of CEC. Here, we distinguish four different meanings of neutrality: a neutral stance toward the parties involved in clinical decision making, toward the arguments offered to frame the discussion, toward the values and norms involved in the case, and toward the outcome of decision making, that is to say the final decision and action that will be implemented. Lastly, we suggest a non-authoritarian way to intend the term “recommendation” in the context of clinical ethics consultation. (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.

This paper examines the role of clinical ethics committees (CECs) in infertility clinics in the UK, focusing on whether they usefully support infertility clinicians' ethical decision-making. The overall aim of the study reported here was to investigate how infertility clinicians approached and handled ethical problems in their everyday practice and this paper reports on one aspect of these data – what they thought about the use of CECs. This paper gives an overview of what arrangements there are for such committees (...) in infertility clinics; considers why the clinicians used CECs; and examines how these committees provided a useful function in the infertility setting and contributed to making ‘good’ ethical decisions. Finally, the paper examines how the form of ethics support can be developed and strengthened, and concludes with recommendations for a particular model of CECs in infertility units – a designated CEC for each infertility unit. (shrink)

Much has been written about the role of hospital ethics committees. Ethics committees may have begun in Seattle in the early 1960s, but they were reified in. New Jersey by the Quinlan Court in the 1970s and thrived in the national bioethics movement of the 1980s.In this flurry of ethics activity, several new forms of ethics committees have evolved. New forms of ethics committees include patient care-oriented ethics committees. Many ethicists are familiar with mission-oriented ethics committees. Such committees have taken (...) on new roles, and Include PROs, IPCs, and HREAPs. In general, these committees are regulatory in nature and may often rely on rules and regulations to assess patient cases, research protocols, and health professional practices. (shrink)

We believe that most bioethies committees as well as individual ethics consultants have major shortcomings in that they are unlikely to be open to serving the widest number of citizens who may need their services when facing bioethical dilemmas. The HDCC serves as a community resource, is open to all citizens, is free standing, and provides a wide variety of perspectives which can assist patients, their families, and healthcare providers to explore a range of values and options.The HDCC serves as (...) a model for communities that seek to establish a bioethics resource. Further, the HDCC model permits the further exploration of ways in which important healthcare issues can be faced. AHD believes, in keeping with its mission, that the creation of the HDCC can increase the public's awareness of and involvement in healthcare issues. As B. Jennings reminds us,The mission of community health decisions projects is to stimulate a well-informed conversation where many voices are heard and all reasonable perspectives given due consideration. They not only inform, but also enable responsible civic participation and thoughtful health care decisionmaking (6).The HDCC model can serve to bring discussions on bioethical dilemmas out of secrecy into safer, yet more open, community fora. (shrink)

In June 1992, a national mail survey was directed to 204 state inpatient psychiatric institutions. This study was implemented following the 1992 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) requirement that hospitals put in place some means with which to address ethical issues. The goals of the study were: 1. to examine state mental hospital characteristics and their response to the JCAHO requirements; 2. to describe healthcare ethics committee (HEC) composition, function, and role; 3. to study patient and family (...) access to a HEC; and 4. to discover ethical issues most frequently addressed. The survey response rate was 71%. Of the 145 responders, 62 had HECs in place, and 53 were in the process of implementing HECs. There were no differences between JCAHO accredited institutions and non-accredited facilities with regard to having HECs. Physicians accounted for 22% of HEC membership, followed by nurses (15%), and administrators (12%). Twenty-six percent of facilities systematically notified patients about existence of the HEC; 71% of facilities had no patient request for HEC services in the last year. A patient's danger to others, and resuscitation policy were issues most frequently (23%) heard by HECs. (shrink)