Williamson Laura, McLean Sheila, Connell Judith
University of Glasgow.
Med Law Int. 2007 Feb 9;8(3):221-238. doi: 10.1177/096853320700800302.
In the United Kingdom there is a growing conviction that CECs have an important role to play in helping health care professionals address ethical dilemmas. For example, the Royal College of Physicians, the Nuffield Trust and the unofficial Clinical Ethics Network, which has received financial support from the Department of Health, commend the use of CECs in the UK. The growth of such committees has been influenced by the legal and policy support they have received in the United States. However, there is increasing concern about both the benefits and the quality of work produced by CECs. In addition, despite the rapid increase in the number of CECs in the UK, outside of the United States they remain under-researched and no formal mechanism exists to assess their performance. As a result we know little about the structure, function, impact and effectiveness of CECs. We are currently conducting a research project funded by the Wellcome Trust that seeks to interrogate the competing claims regarding the benefits and disbenefits of CECs. This initial account of our research provides a detailed analysis of theoretical issues that surround the development and use of CECs and points towards the questions that lie at the heart of the social science strand of our project.
在英国,人们越来越坚信临床伦理委员会在帮助医疗保健专业人员解决伦理困境方面可发挥重要作用。例如,皇家内科医学院、纳菲尔德信托基金会以及接受了卫生部资金支持的非官方临床伦理网络都对在英国使用临床伦理委员会表示赞许。此类委员会的发展受到了它们在美国所获得的法律和政策支持的影响。然而,人们对临床伦理委员会所产生的益处和工作质量的担忧日益增加。此外,尽管英国临床伦理委员会的数量迅速增长,但在美国以外地区,对它们的研究仍然不足,而且不存在评估其绩效的正式机制。因此,我们对临床伦理委员会的结构、功能、影响和有效性知之甚少。我们目前正在开展一个由惠康信托基金会资助的研究项目,该项目旨在对有关临床伦理委员会利弊的相互矛盾的说法进行探究。我们这项研究的初步报告对围绕临床伦理委员会的发展和使用的理论问题进行了详细分析,并指出了我们项目社会科学部分核心问题的方向。