Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T12:58:57.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Educational Needs of Ethics Committees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Glenn G. Griener  and
Janet L. Storch
Glenn G. Griener
Affiliation:
Division of Bioethics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Janet L. Storch
Affiliation:
Dean of the Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hospital ethics committees must be knowledgeable if they are to perform consultations, advise administrators on policy, or offer educational programs. Because the membership of the committee is interdisciplinary, with most drawn from the healthcare professions, the individuals who join cannot be expected to bring knowledge of bioethies with them. Therefore, a new committee must spend time developing expertise before it can appropriately serve the hospital community. Although the need for committee self-education is generally recognized, it is seldom discussed in any detail. When discussed at all, expertise in bioethies is usually described as composed of a familiarity with an identifiable body of knowledge and mastery over techniques of moral reasoning. It is assumed that a committee can develop this expertise early in its life through a short course of study.

Type
Bioethies Education
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , Summer 1994 , pp. 467 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Notes

1. Hosford, B. Bioethics Committees: The Health Care Provider's Guide. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen, 1986.Google Scholar

2. Ross, JW (with Bayley, C, Michel, V, Pugh, D). Handbook for Hospital Ethics Committees. Chicago: American Hospital, 1986.Google Scholar

3. Bayley, C, Cranford, RE. Techniques for committee self-education and institution-wide education. In: Cranford, RE, Doudera, AE, eds. Institutional Ethics Committees and Health Care Decision Making. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press, 1984:149–56.Google Scholar

4. See note 2. Ross, et al. 1986:49–50.Google Scholar

5. See note 1, Hosford, . 1986:158.Google Scholar

6. Kupfer, RB. Hospital Ethics Committees: Manual for a Training Program. New York: Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1988.Google Scholar

7. Rostain, AL, Parrott, MC. Ethics committee simulation for teaching medical ethics. Journal of Medical Education 1986;61:178–81.Google Scholar

8. Winston, ME. Ethics committee simulations. Teaching Philosophy 1990;13:127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. See note 3. Bayley, , Cranford, . 1984:152.Google Scholar

10. Christensen, KT. Self-education for hospital ethics committees. Healthcare Ethics Committee Forum 1989;1:333–9.Google ScholarPubMed

11. See note 2. Ross, et al. 1986:50.Google Scholar

12. Storch, JL, Griener, GG, Marshall, DA, Olineck, BA. Ethics committees in Canadian hospitals: report of the 1989 survey. Healthcare Management Forum 1990;3(Winter):3–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Storch, JL, Griener, GG. Ethics committees in Canadian hospitals: report of the 1990 pilot study. Healthcare Management Forum 1992;5(Spring):19–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. This claim requires some clarification. The two Catholic committees traced their roots to medical moral committees, established years earlier, whose primary interest was in reproductive issues and whose primary role was to approve any request for sterilization procedures. In recent years, both of these committees had decided to broaden their interests. Once this decision was taken, termination of treatment was the first set of topics to be considered. (The role of approving sterilization procedures was then delegated to a subcommittee.)

15. Health Care Ethics Guide. Ottawa, Ontario: Catholic Health Association of Canada, 1991.Google Scholar

16. A related concern also surfaced. The committee chair acted as a gatekeeper, deciding whether a case was presented to the entire committee. This may have prevented some cases from becoming the subject of a full consultation when such a session could have been helpful.

17. The administrators interviewed were unanimous in the opinion that specific administrative decisions should not find a place on the ethics committee's agenda. Some administrators would welcome committee input on the process and policies used to arrive at these difficult decisions.

18. Griener, GG, Storch, JL. Hospital ethics committees: problems in evaluation. Healthcare Ethics Committee Forum 1992;4:5–18.Google ScholarPubMed

19. La Puma, J, Schiedermayer, DL. Ethics consultation: skills, roles, and training. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;114:155–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. Singer, PA, Pellegrino, ED, Siegler, M. Ethics committees and consultants. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;1:263–7.Google Scholar

21. West, MB, Gibson, JM. Facilitating medical ethics case review: what ethics committees can learn from medication and facilitation techniques. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1992;1:63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar