Clinical Ethics Consultation in the United Kingdom

• Authors: Sheila A.M. McLean
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The system of clinical ethics committees (CECs) in the United Kingdom is based on goodwill. No formal requirements exist as to constitution, membership, range of expertise or the status of their recommendations. Healthcare professionals are not obliged to use CECs where they exist, nor to follow any advice received. In addition, the make-up of CECs suggests that ethics itself may be under-represented. In most cases, there is one member with a training in ethics – the rest are healthcare professionals or administrators, although a lawyer is generally also included in the membership. This begs the question as whether CECs can ‘do ethics’, as well whether or not they can take seriously the requirements of due process, formal justice and human rights. Moreover, the role of the patient in this system is opaque.

• Publisher: Instytut Filozofii - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
• Journal: Diametros
• Year: 2009
• Issue: 22
• Pages: 76-89

Contributors

author

Sheila A.M. McLean

• Glasgow University

References

• Agich, Youngner [1991] – G.J. Agich, S.J. Youngner, For Experts Only? Access to Hospital Ethics Committees, “Hastings Center Report”, September-October 1991: 17-24.
• Annas [1991] – G.J. Annas, Ethics Committees: From Ethical Comfort to Ethical Cover, “Hastings Center Report”, May-June 1991: 18-21.
• Doyal [2001] – L. Doyal, Clinical ethics committees and the formulation of health care policy, “Journal of Medical Ethics” 27, 2001: 44-49.
• DuVal et al. [2001] – G. DuVal et al., What triggers requests for ethics consultations?, “Journal of Medical Ethics” 27, 2001 (suppl I): i24-i29.
• Ethics in Practice [2005] – Ethics in Practice: Background and Recommendations for Enhanced Support, Royal College of Physicians, London, 2005.
• Godkin et al. [2005] – M.D. Godkin et al., Project Examining Effectiveness in Clinical Ethics (PEECE): phase 1 – descriptive analysis of nine clinical ethics services, “Journal of Medi- cal Ethics” 31, 2005: 505–512.
• Hoffman [1991] – D.E. Hoffman, Regulating Ethics Committees in Health Care Institutions – Is It Time?, “Maryland Law Review” 50, 1991: 746-797.
• http://www.ethics-network.org.uk/committees (accessed on 26/10/2009). http://www.ethox.org.uk (accessed on 26/10/2009).
• McLean [2008] – S.A.M. McLean, Clinical Ethics Committees: a due process wasteland?, “Clinical Ethics” 3, 2008: 99-104.
• McLean [2005] – S.A.M. McLean, Law and Ethics: A New Governance Issue?, “Clinical Risk” 11, 2005: 1-5.
• Orlowski et al. [2006] – J.P. Orlowski et al., Why doctors use or do not use ethics consultation, “Journal of Medical Ethics” 32, 2006: 499-502.
• Re Quinlan [1976] – In Re Quinlan, NJ 1976, 355 A2d 647.
• Slowther et al. [2001] – A. Slowther, C. Bunch, B. Woolnough, T. Hope, Clinical ethics support services in the UK: an investigation of the current provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK, “Journal of Medical Ethics” 27, 2001 (suppl I): i2-i8.
• Slowther et al. [2004] – A. Slowther, C. Johnston, J. Goodall, T. Hope, Development of clinical ethics committees, “BMJ” 328, 2004: 950-952.
• Sokol [2009] – D. Sokol, The unpalatable truth about ethics committees, “BMJ” 339, 2009: b4179.
• Sokol[2005] – D.K. Sokol, Meeting the ethical needs of doctors: We need clinical ethicists in addition to other measures, “BMJ” 330, 2005: 741-742.
• Spielman [2001] – B. Spielman, Has Faith in Health Care Ethics Consultants Gone Too Far? Risks of an Unregulated Practice and a Model Act to Contain Them, “Marquette Law Review” 85, 2001: 161-221.
• Van der Kloot Meijburg, ter Meulen [2001] – H.H. Van der Kloot Meijburg, R.H.J. ter Meulen, Developing standards for institutional ethics committees: lessons from the Neth- erlands, “Journal of Medical Ethics” 27, 2001 (suppl. I): i36-i40.
• Wolf [1992] – S.M. Wolf, Due process in ethics committee case review, “ HEC Forum” 4, 1992: 83-96.

Identifiers

DOI

10.13153/diam.22.2009.364