Hospital ethics committees have become widespread over the last 25 years, stimulated by the Quinlan decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, the report of a President's Commission, and most recently by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), which now man dates that each hospital seeking accreditation have a functioning process for the consideration of ethical issues in patient care. Laws and regulations in several states require that hospitals establish ethics committees, and some states stipulate that certain types of cases and disputes be taken to such committees. At least one state grants legal immunity to those who implement recommendations of an ethics committee.

The practice of nonphysician ethicist-consultants giving ethics advice concerning the appropriate medical treatment of patients in hospitals is a relatively recent development. Although only a minority of hospitals make substantial use of any formal ethics consulting service, the number is growing and apparently will continue to do so. Indeed, at least among urban teaching hospitals, some sort of ethics consulting service is increasingly commonplace.

Recent ethics literature suggests that issues involved in non-heart-beating (NHB) organ procurement are both highly charged and rather urgent. Some fear that NHB is a public relations disaster waiting to happen or that it will create a backlash against organ donation. The purpose of the study described below was to assess ethics committees' current level of involvement in and readiness for addressing the difficult issues that NHB organ retrieval raises—either proactively through policy development or concurrently through ethics consultation.

Over the past two decades ethics committees have proliferated in healthcare institutions across the country. Catalysts for this growth include the endorsement of ethics committees by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Quinlan case, by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical Research (“President's Commission”) in its report entitled Deciding to Forgo Life Sustaining Medical Treatment, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in its 1985 “Baby Doe” regulations, by numerous other courts in treatment decisionmaking opinions issued after Quinlan, and more recently by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).

It is not the outpatient setting, per se, that is presenting new challenges and opportunities to ethics consultants and ethics committees. Rather, it is the underlying reason for shifting more and more patient care from the inpatient to the outpatient setting-namely, calculations of cost-effectiveness.

As the structure of healthcare delivery undergoes a breathtaking transformation, many ethics committees are wondering how and if they will be affected. Although the impact has not yet been widely felt, hospital-based ethics committees cannot avoid the pressures and upheaval caused by the reorganization of healthcare. This article will briefly review some of the factors contributing to the transformation of medicine, and suggest a number of ways in which ethics committees can respond proactively.

‘Treatment’ from which the patient cannot benefit is sometimes administered to a patient so that the comfort of the patient's family or caregivers may be increased. Is this permissible? To answer that question we will explore the interests of the permanently unconscious patient and the potential for such a patient's interests to conflict with those of her family and healthcare providers. We will conclude that in the likely absence of a specific advance directive from the patient providing for such circumstances, treatment for the benefit of the family may be given so long as it is not abusive. However, treatment solely for the comfort of caregivers may not be given without consent of the patient's surrogate decisionmakers.

Anyone who thinks contemporary American society is hopelessly contentious and lacking in shared values has probably not been paying attention to the way the popular media portray the hospice movement. Over and over, we are told such things as that “Humane care costs less than high-tech care and is what patients want and need,” that hospices are “the most effective and least expensive route to a dignified death,” that hospice personnel are “heroic,” that their “compassion and dedication seem inexhaustible,” and that “few could argue with the powerful message that it is better [for dying patients] to leave wrapped in the love of family and care givers than locked in the cold, metallic embrace of a machine.“

A competent patient has the right to refuse treatment necessary to sustain life. However, for many end-of-life decisions, we lack direct access to the wishes of a competent patient. Some treatment decisions near the end of life involve patients with severely diminished mental capacity (for example, Alzheimer's patients), some involve patients who are unable to communicate (for example, some stroke victims), and some involve patients who are simply unable or unwilling to participate in decisionmaking due to the nature or severity of their illness.

The current interest in and discussion of virtue ethics suggests that this approach to moral decisionmaking has several distinct advantages as applied to ethical issues in healthcare delivery. For the most part, calls to incorporate the virtues of the healthcare provider in discussions of these issues have sought to supplement rather than totally replace traditional ethical theories, such as the utilitarian focus on maximizing the best overall consequences and the Kantian concern to act on the duty of respect for persons. Including virtue-based ethics in such discussions allows for a more eclectic view of what should be considered in resolving difficult moral problems. As many critics of the purely principle-based approach have noted, real moral dilemmas are usually quite messy and are not easily susceptible to satisfactory resolution solely on the basis of abstract moral theories or principles.

Virtue ethics attempts to identify certain commonly agreed-upon dispositions to act in certain ways, dispositions that would be accepted as ‘good’ by those affected, and to locate the goodness or badness of an act internal to the agent. Basically, virtue ethics is said to date back to Aristotle, but as Alisdair MacIntyre has pointed out, the whole idea of ‘virtue ethics’ would have been unintelligible in Greek philosophy for “a virtue (arete) was an excellence and ethics concerned excellence of character; all ethics was virtue ethics.” Virtue ethics as a method to approach problems in medical ethics is said by some to lend itself to working through cases at the bedside or, at least, is better than the conventional method of handling ethical problems. In this paper I want to explore some of the shortcomings of this approach, examine other traditional approaches, indicate some of their limitations, and suggest a different conceptualization of the approach.

Because of the emphasis on individualism and self-governance, medical interventions and medical research in Western nations are preceded by attempts to obtain informed consent from the individual patient or potential research subject. Individual autonomy expresses our belief that persons are ends in themselves and not merely instrumentalities to achieve the goals of others. By respecting the patient or potential research subject in the context of medical decisionmaking, we acknowledge that these individuals are moral agents. Thus, individual autonomy is an important feature of morality as it is practiced in the West. However, there are at least two circumstances in which individual autonomy appears to be threatened. One is embodied in nonwestern societies that favor collective decisionmaking over that of the individual. The other is related to the need for family histories and family testing to determine the susceptibility of family members to some genetically based disease. In both cases, individual judgment appears to be made subordinate to collective judgment.