Ethics Committees: Who Will Guard the Guardians; the Limits of Moral Objectivity; Advice and Consent; Why Cases Sometimes Go Wrong
Cohen, Cynthia B.
Veatch, Robert M.
Ross, Judith Wilson
Hastings Center Report. 1989 Jan/Feb; 19(1): 19-23.
Three commentators explore the accountability of institutional ethics committees and the case review functions they must develop if they are to serve as their own guardians. Recommendations are made about whose conception of "the Good" is to prevail in ethics committee review of surrogate decisions (Jennings), about issues in the protection of patient confidentiality (Veatch), and about the common understanding of ethics committees concerning the purposes of case review (Wilson). Each position assumes that ethics committees now are sufficiently mature that they can cogently explain in some detail the substantive and procedural framework within which they carry out case reviews. All the comments maintain that these committees can do more to make their Platonic search for "the Good" open to rational account and common understanding. (KIE abstract)
Accountability; Allowing to Die; Autonomy; Clinical Ethics; Competence; Confidentiality; Counseling; Consent; Decision Making; Ethical Review; Ethics; Ethics Committees; Guardians; Hospitals; Informed Consent; Institutional Ethics; Legal Aspects; Patient Participation; Patients; Review; Technical Expertise; Terminally Ill; Third Party Consent;