Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery.

Q1 Arts and Humanities Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-30 DOI:10.1177/14777509211034145
Priscilla Alderson, Deborah Bowman, Joe Brierley, Martin J Elliott, Romana Kazmi, Rosa Mendizabal-Espinosa, Jonathan Montgomery, Katy Sutcliffe, Hugo Wellesley
{"title":"Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery.","authors":"Priscilla Alderson, Deborah Bowman, Joe Brierley, Martin J Elliott, Romana Kazmi, Rosa Mendizabal-Espinosa, Jonathan Montgomery, Katy Sutcliffe, Hugo Wellesley","doi":"10.1177/14777509211034145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":53540,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9361409/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509211034145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生命伦理学、临床伦理委员会和儿童同意接受心脏手术。
本讨论文件探讨了鲜为人知的理论如何影响临床伦理委员会。另一篇论文探讨了社会科学中的四大理论:实证主义、解释学、批判理论和功能主义,这些理论可以鼓励法律伦理学理论,也可以鼓励以理论与实践相一致为目标的实用生活生物伦理学。本文通过将这四种理论与临床伦理委员会成员所报告的目标、实践以及对待效率、权力、恐吓、公正、平等和儿童利益与权利的方法联系起来,阐述了法律主义或生活生物伦理的主题。还考虑了提出伦理问题的不同方法。了解这四种理论的影响有助于理解并在可能的情况下改变临床伦理委员会的常规工作。本文并非研究报告,但参考了最近在伦敦两家儿科心脏科进行的一项研究。我们对 45 名从业人员和相关专家进行了访谈,其中包括伦理委员会的 8 名成员,内容涉及在儿童心脏择期手术同意书的扩展过程中为家属提供信息、准备和支持的工作。有关各专业的一系列论文,包括这篇关于生物伦理学和法律以及临床伦理委员会对临床实践的影响的论文,都对多学科团队合作的马赛克进行了报道。这项定性社会研究由英国心脏基金会资助,目的是为了更多地了解围手术期所有相关人员的观点和需求。问题包括如何避免纠纷,如何鼓励工作人员和家属之间的高道德标准和相互尊重的合作,以及如何在临床伦理委员会的支持下尊重未成年人的同意或拒绝。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Ethics
Clinical Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
Psychiatry as a vocation: Moral injury, COVID-19, and the phenomenology of clinical practice. From a phenomenology of birth towards an ethics of obstetric care Phenomenologies of care: Integrating patient and caregiver narratives into clinical care Loneliness in medicine and relational ethics: A phenomenology of the physician-patient relationship Gross negligence manslaughter of intern doctors – scapegoating or justified?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1