Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T09:45:07.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Suggestions for Holding Bioethics Committees and Consultants Accountable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Sigrid Fry-Revere
Sigrid Fry-Revere
Affiliation:
George Mason University College of Nursing & Health Science and works extensively with bioeth- ics committees and consultants in establishing and improving clinical bioethics services
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Last year, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations for the first time included provisions in its Hospital Accreditation Manual requiring institutions to have mechanisms in place to consider ethical issues arising in the care of patients and to educate care givers and patients on bioethical issues. This new requirement is notably vague. There is no indication of what type of mechanisms would be appropriate or how those involved in considering ethical issues should conduct themselves. This vagueness is by no means accidental, but it reflects a recognition that clinical bioethics is still in its formative stages and that there are currently almost as many different mechanisms for dealing with bioethical issues in the healthcare setting as there are institutions that have such mechanisms. The Joint Commission's action, however, also implies that the time for experimentation will soon be over.

Type
Special Section: Ethics Consultants and Ethics Consultations
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 449 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Hospital Accreditation Manual, Sections R11 and R12. Chicago: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, 1992.Google Scholar

2. Moreno, JD. Models for an American association of bioethics. Newsletter of the Society for Bioethics Consultation 1992;(spring): 1–3, 6Google Scholar. Veatch, R. Courts, committees, and caring. American Medical News 1980;23 (23 05):Impact/l–Impact 2+Google ScholarPubMed. McCormick, R. Ethics committees: promise or peril? Law, Medicine & Health Care 1984; 12(4): 150–5.Google ScholarPubMed

3. Kadish, S. Methodology and criteria in due process adjudication—a survey and criticism. Yale Law Journal 1956–1957; 66:319–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. These suggestions are discussed in more detail in Fry-Revere, S. The Accountability of Bioethics Committees and Consultants. Frederick, Maryland: University Publishing Group, 1992:93–8.Google Scholar

5. The attorney present should not be hospital counsel because of potential conflicts of interest. In-house counsel is obligated to protect the institution's legal interests, and such interests may be in direct conflict with his or her role as a committee member.