There is growing interest in clinical ethics. However, we still have sparse knowledge about what is actually going on in the everyday practice of clinical ethics consultations. This paper introduces a descriptive evaluation tool to present, discuss and compare how clinical ethics case consultations are actually carried out. The tool does not aim to define ‘best practice’. Rather, it facilitates concrete comparisons and evaluative discussions of the role, function, procedures and ideals inherent in clinical ethics case consultation practices. The tool (...) was developed during meetings of the European Clinical Ethics Network. Based on written reports and participation in the network meetings, the development and the content of the tool and the results of its application in presenting and discussing 10 case consultations are summarized. The tool facilitated understanding of the details of clinical ethics case consultations across individuals and institutions with various experiences and cultures, and comparison between various practices. (shrink)

Abstract“Clinical ethics consultants” have been practicing in the United States for about 50 years. Most of the earliest consultants—the “pioneers”—were “outsiders” when they first appeared at patients' bedsides and in the clinic. However, if they were outsiders initially, they acclimated to the clinical setting and became “insiders” very quickly. Moreover, there was some tension between traditional academics and those doing applied ethics about whether there was sufficient “critical distance” for appropriate reflection about the complex medical ethics dilemmas of the day (...) if one were involved in the decision making. Again, the pioneers deflected concerns by identifying and instituting safeguards to assure professional objectivity in clinical ethics consultation services. One might suggest that in moving inside and establishing normative practices, the pioneer clinical ethics consultants anticipated adoption of their routines and professionalization of the field. (shrink)

The structure, content, and orientation of the contemporary medical record inadequately reflect the appropriate influence of patients' rights and bioethics on health care. Most tellingly, the medical chart reveals a remarkable absence of attention to medical ethics, except in the case of crisis management. But medical ethics informs both crisis decision-making and virtually all clinical interventions. Indeed, clinical care embodies a complex array of choices influenced by individual and cultural values, themselves reflecting religious beliefs, personal histories, psychologies, and social mores. (...) But the typical medical chart, which records clinical descriptions, analyses, and rationales for treatment, rarely identifies or accounts for this value-laden dimension of care and thus both over-simplifies and distorts the depiction of a patient's illness and its treatment. To better reflect the complex moral domain of clinical care, and assist in organizing its complex structure, a systematic procedure is proposed here to evaluate the ethical status of every patient: As a routine part of the clinical evaluation, in a designated Ethical Concerns section of the medical record, an ?ethics work-uP? is designed to serve as a moral ?diagnostic? analogous to its scientific counterpart. Adapted to the needs of individual patients, such evaluations should identify ethical problems, coordinate related data, resources, and opinion, and define the rationale for choices made and actions pursued. In establishing improved integration of the ?epistemologies? of care and the ?ethics? of care, the goals of a more humane, patient-centered medicine may be better met. (shrink)

This issue’s “Legal Briefing” column covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as “death panels.” But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified their roles concerning both (...) end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories: 1. Existence and availability2. Membership and composition3. Operating procedures4. Advisory roles5. Decision-making and gate-keeping roles6. Confidentiality7. Immunity8. Litigation and court cases. (shrink)