Steinkamp Norbert, Gordijn Bert, Borovecki Ana, Gefenas Eugenijus, Glasa Jozef, Guerrier Marc, Meulenbergs Tom, Rózyńska Joanna, Slowther Anne
Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Philosophy, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Internal Post 137, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Med Health Care Philos. 2007 Dec;10(4):461-75. doi: 10.1007/s11019-007-9054-6. Epub 2007 May 23.
In this article, the question is discussed if and how Healthcare Ethics Committees (HECs) should be regulated. The paper consists of two parts. First, authors from eight EC member countries describe the status quo in their respective countries, and give reasons as to the form of regulation they consider most adequate. In the second part, the country reports are analysed. It is suggested that regulation of HECs should be central and weak. Central regulation is argued to be apt to improve HECs' accountability, relevance and comparability. To facilitate biomedical citizenship and ethical reflection, regulation should at the same time be weak rather than strict. Independence of HECs to deliberate about ethical questions, and to give solicited and unsolicited advice, should be supported and only interfered with by way of exception. One exception is when circumstances become temporary adversarial to ethical deliberation in healthcare institutions. In view of European unification, steps should be taken to develop consistent policies for both Eastern and Western European countries.
在本文中，探讨了医疗保健伦理委员会（HECs）是否以及应如何受到监管这一问题。本文由两部分组成。首先，来自八个欧盟成员国的作者描述了各自国家的现状，并阐述了他们认为最合适的监管形式的理由。在第二部分中，对各国的报告进行了分析。建议对医疗保健伦理委员会的监管应集中且宽松。集中监管被认为有助于提高医疗保健伦理委员会的问责性、相关性和可比性。为了促进生物医学公民意识和伦理反思，监管同时应宽松而非严格。应支持医疗保健伦理委员会独立审议伦理问题并提供主动和被动的建议，且仅在例外情况下进行干预。一种例外情况是当医疗机构中的情况暂时不利于伦理审议时。鉴于欧洲一体化，应采取措施为东欧和西欧国家制定一致的政策。
