Dörries Andrea, Boitte Pierre, Borovecki Ana, Cobbaut Jean-Philippe, Reiter-Theil Stella, Slowther Anne-Marie
Zentrum für Gesundheitsethik (ZfG), Hannover, Germany.
HEC Forum. 2011 Sep;23(3):193-205. doi: 10.1007/s10730-011-9160-y.
Clinical ethics committees (CECs) have been developing in many countries since the 1980s, more recently in the transitional countries in Eastern Europe. With their increasing profile they are now faced with a range of questions and challenges regarding their position within the health care organizations in which they are situated: Should CECs be independent bodies with a critical role towards institutional management, or should they be an integral part of the hospital organization? In this paper, we discuss the organizational context in which CECs function in Europe focusing on five aspects. We conclude that in Europe clinical ethics committees need to maintain a critical independence while generating acceptance of the CEC and its potential benefit to both individuals and the organization. CECs, perhaps particularly in transitional countries, must counter the charge of "alibi ethics". CECs must define their contribution to in-house quality management in their respective health care organization, clarifying how ethical reflection on various levels serves the hospital and patient care in general. This last challenge is made more difficult by lack of consensus about appropriate quality outcomes for CECs internationally. These are daunting challenges, but the fact that CECs continue to develop suggests that we should make the effort to overcome them. We believe there is a need for further research that specifically addresses some of the institutional challenges facing CECs.
自20世纪80年代以来,临床伦理委员会(CECs)在许多国家不断发展,最近在东欧的转型国家也是如此。随着其知名度的不断提高,它们现在面临着一系列关于其在所在医疗机构中地位的问题和挑战:临床伦理委员会应该是对机构管理发挥关键作用的独立机构,还是应该成为医院组织的一个组成部分?在本文中,我们将讨论临床伦理委员会在欧洲发挥作用的组织背景,重点关注五个方面。我们得出的结论是,在欧洲,临床伦理委员会需要保持关键的独立性,同时让人们接受临床伦理委员会及其对个人和组织的潜在益处。临床伦理委员会,尤其是在转型国家,必须应对“托辞伦理”的指责。临床伦理委员会必须明确其对各自医疗机构内部质量管理的贡献,阐明不同层面的伦理思考如何总体上服务于医院和患者护理。由于国际上对临床伦理委员会适当的质量成果缺乏共识,最后这项挑战变得更加困难。这些都是艰巨的挑战,但临床伦理委员会不断发展这一事实表明我们应该努力克服它们。我们认为有必要进行进一步的研究,专门解决临床伦理委员会面临的一些机构性挑战。