Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery.
Clinical ethics
care for specific groups
healthcare
healthcare quality
human experimentation
incompetents
informed consent
minors
professional ethics in medicine
Journal
Clinical ethics
ISSN: 1477-7509
Titre abrégé: Clin Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101294546
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
entrez:
15
8
2022
pubmed:
16
8
2022
medline:
16
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This discussion paper considers how seldom recognised theories influence clinical ethics committees. A companion paper examined four major theories in social science: positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism, which can encourage legalistic ethics theories or practical living bioethics, which aims for theory-practice congruence. This paper develops the legalistic or living bioethics themes by relating the four theories to clinical ethics committee members' reported aims and practices and approaches towards efficiency, power, intimidation, justice, equality and children's interests and rights. Different approaches to framing ethical questions are also considered. Being aware of the four theories' influence can help when seeking to understand and possibly change clinical ethics committee routines. The paper is not a research report but is informed by a recent study in two London paediatric cardiac units. Forty-five practitioners and related experts were interviewed, including eight members of ethics committees, about the work of informing, preparing and supporting families during the extended process of consent to children's elective heart surgery. The mosaic of multidisciplinary teamwork is reported in a series of papers about each profession, including this one on bioethics and law and clinical ethics committees' influence on clinical practice. The qualitative social research was funded by the British Heart Foundation, in order that more may be known about the perioperative views and needs of all concerned. Questions included how disputes can be avoided, how high ethical standards and respectful cooperation between staff and families can be encouraged, and how minors' consent or refusal may be respected, with the support of clinical ethics committees.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35967459
doi: 10.1177/14777509211034145
pii: 10.1177_14777509211034145
pmc: PMC9361409
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
272-281Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : PG/18/22/33604
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Bull Med Ethics. 1992 Jul-Aug;80:13-20
pubmed: 16144143
Arch Dis Child. 2014 Oct;99(10):887-91
pubmed: 24914095
Med Law Rev. 2012 Winter;20(1):29-44
pubmed: 22351701
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2302-2305
pubmed: 29900861
HEC Forum. 2009 Jun;21(2):207-28
pubmed: 19543692
Sociol Health Illn. 2016 Nov;38(8):1217-1242
pubmed: 27666147
Arch Dis Child. 2017 Oct;102(10):930-935
pubmed: 28408466
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Mar;14(1):43-52
pubmed: 28063105
Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(1):40-2
pubmed: 25562225
J Med Ethics. 2013 Sep;39(9):573-7
pubmed: 22465877
J Med Ethics. 2015 Jan;41(1):60-3
pubmed: 25516937
Arch Dis Child. 2000 Feb;82(2):177-82
pubmed: 10648379
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7-8):2098-2112
pubmed: 30935285
Arch Dis Child. 1980 Jan;55(1):75-7
pubmed: 7377824