• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

正方与反方观点。高等教育委员会(HECs)是否应做出具有实际约束力的决定?

Point and counterpoint. Should HECs make de facto binding decisions?

作者信息

Brunetti L L, Ellos W J

出版信息

HEC Forum. 1994 May;6(3):176-82. doi: 10.1007/BF01463652.

DOI:10.1007/BF01463652
PMID:10135103
Abstract

It is evident that HEC decisions are de facto binding. Our challenge is to recognize the implications of these decisions for patient care. As a result of the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act and the recent JCAHO rules mandating dispute resolving mechanisms for ethical issues, case review by ethics committees will undoubtedly have an even greater influence on patient care. Therefore, health care institutions and their medical staffs must strive to find the best way to use the inherent powers of hospital ethics committees to enhance patient care decisionmaking.

摘要

显然,高等教育委员会的决定实际上具有约束力。我们面临的挑战是认识到这些决定对患者护理的影响。由于《患者自我决定法案》的通过以及近期联合委员会国际医院认证组织(JCAHO)要求建立伦理问题争端解决机制的规定,伦理委员会进行的病例审查无疑将对患者护理产生更大影响。因此,医疗机构及其医务人员必须努力找到最佳方式,利用医院伦理委员会的固有权力来加强患者护理决策。

相似文献

1
Point and counterpoint. Should HECs make de facto binding decisions?正方与反方观点。高等教育委员会(HECs)是否应做出具有实际约束力的决定?
HEC Forum. 1994 May;6(3):176-82. doi: 10.1007/BF01463652.
2
Point and counterpoint. Should incompetent patients (and their families) be provided professional advocates for an HEC concurrent case review?正方与反方观点。对于无行为能力的患者(及其家属),是否应为医疗照护伦理委员会(HEC)的并行病例审查提供专业辩护人?
HEC Forum. 1994 May;6(3):170-5. doi: 10.1007/BF01463650.
3
Point and counterpoint. Should HECs involved in case review have a healthcare ethics consultant?正方与反方观点。参与病例审查的医院伦理委员会是否应该配备医疗伦理顾问?
HEC Forum. 1993 May;5(3):196-204. doi: 10.1007/BF01463893.
4
Hospital ethics committees in practice: the case review function of four HECs in Connecticut.实际运作中的医院伦理委员会:康涅狄格州四个医院伦理委员会的案例审查职能
HEC Forum. 1994 Mar;6(2):73-84. doi: 10.1007/BF01463221.
5
Facilitating medical ethics case review: what ethics committees can learn from mediation and facilitation techniques.促进医学伦理案例审查:伦理委员会可从调解和促进技巧中学到什么。
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1992 Winter;1(1):63-74. doi: 10.1017/s0963180100000098.
6
Should competent patients or their families be notified before HECs review the patients' cases? Yes.在医院伦理委员会(HECs)审查患者病例之前,是否应通知有行为能力的患者或其家属? 应该通知。
HEC Forum. 1994 Jul;6(4):257-9. doi: 10.1007/BF01452475.
7
Point and counterpoint. Should HECs be designed primarily to assist the health care team and institution rather than the patient?正方与反方观点。医院应急指挥中心(HECs)的设计是否应主要服务于医护团队和医疗机构,而非患者?
HEC Forum. 1992;4(3):199-203, 205-8. doi: 10.1007/BF00057872.
8
Ethics committees: time to experiment with standards.伦理委员会:是时候尝试制定标准了。
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Feb 15;120(4):335-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-4-199402150-00012.
9
A new role for institutional ethics committees: organizational ethics.机构伦理委员会的新角色:组织伦理。
J Clin Ethics. 1997 Winter;8(4):372-6.
10
Point and counterpoint. Should HECs consider financial costs of care during case review? A reply.正方与反方观点。医疗伦理委员会在病例审查期间是否应考虑医疗护理的财务成本?一则回应。
HEC Forum. 1992;4(4):269-70; discussion 271. doi: 10.1007/BF00057789.

本文引用的文献

1
Hospital ethics committees. Administrative aspects.医院伦理委员会。管理方面。
JAMA. 1985 May 10;253(18):2687-92.
2
Ethics committees: decisions by bureaucracy.伦理委员会:官僚机构的决策。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1986 Jun;16(3):22-4.
3
An ethics consultation service in a teaching hospital. Utilization and evaluation.一家教学医院的伦理咨询服务。使用情况与评估。
JAMA. 1988 Aug 12;260(6):808-11.
4
Ethics committees and decisions to limit care. The experience at the Massachusetts General Hospital.伦理委员会与限制治疗的决策。麻省总医院的经验
JAMA. 1988 Aug 12;260(6):803-7.
5
Ethics by committee: the moral authority of consensus.委员会制定的伦理规范:共识的道德权威
J Med Philos. 1988 Nov;13(4):411-32. doi: 10.1093/jmp/13.4.411.
6
Impact of medical ethics consultations on physicians: an exploratory study.医学伦理咨询对医生的影响:一项探索性研究。
Am J Med. 1988 Dec;85(6):761-5. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(88)80017-2.
7
What means this consensus? Ethics committees and philosophic tradition.这种共识意味着什么?伦理委员会与哲学传统。
J Clin Ethics. 1990 Spring;1(1):38-43; discussion 43-5.
8
Does legislating hospital ethics committees make a difference? A study of hospital ethics committees in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia.对医院伦理委员会进行立法会产生影响吗?一项关于马里兰州、哥伦比亚特区和弗吉尼亚州医院伦理委员会的研究。
Law Med Health Care. 1991 Spring-Summer;19(1-2):105-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1991.tb01804.x.
9
The epistemology and ethics of consensus: uses and misuses of 'ethical' expertise.共识的认识论与伦理学:“伦理”专业知识的运用与滥用
J Med Philos. 1991 Aug;16(4):409-26. doi: 10.1093/jmp/16.4.409.
10
Community hospital ethics consultation: evaluation and comparison with a university hospital service.社区医院伦理咨询:与大学医院服务的评估和比较
Am J Med. 1992 Apr;92(4):346-51. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(92)90262-a.