Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11651547

Ethics committees and due process.

Abstract

I have three points to make about due process and an IEC's responsibility to provide ethics consultation on request: 1) the problem of due process needs to be put into the context of ethics consultation, for which committees are responsible but which they are ill-equipped to deliver as a whole group, except in certain circumstances; 2) IECs that attempt to provide consultation without an early stage of bedside consultation, involving the key decision-makers and especially the patient, attending physician and nurse(s), are inviting due process problems as well as a general "failure to thrive"; and 3) due process issues are important to resolve at two levels: a) initial contacts with patient, family and other decision-makers at an early stage of consultation close to the bedside, and b) especially at a second level of conflict resolution, when part or all of the IEC may be involved, because no resolution of the ethical problem(s) has been found at the primary level of consultation and the level of conflict will probably be higher. I propose a two-stage or two-step model for due process issues, i.e., obligations exist at both levels to respect the patient's rights and his or her priority in the decision-making process. My recommendation will be that IECs and their consultants need to be especially meticulous in carrying out these obligations at a second level of conflict resolution, when all or part of the IEC will be involved.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John C Fletcher. 1992. Ethics committees and due process.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.1992.tb01205.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Justice and equality in mental health law: the European experience.

This is the text of a lecture delivered at the World Conference of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health in Sydney in September 2003 on the occasion of the award to the author of the Prix Philippe Pinel. Its theme is the potential of the European Convention on Human Rights to secure the human rights of people with mental disorders and disabilities, viewed in the context of the legislation on mental health and mental incapacity in England and Wales. Its conclusion is that the Convention is better at protecting them from unwanted or unnecessary treatment and care than it is at securing for them equal access to the treatment and care they want or need. The lecture has been updated to reflect developments in the United Kingdom since 2003.

Civil Rights↗

["For the welfare of patients"--is this really the case?].

According to a decision by the German Federal Constitution Court (1 BvR 347/98), it is illegal to refuse compulsorily insured persons therapy if they suffering from a lifethreatening disease against which there is no effective therapy on the basis of current medical science. The chosen method of treatment should offer a not entirely remote chance of healing. What counts is the effect treatment has in each individual case. Serious objections to the the Court's criteria have been expressed by medical and legal experts, who contend that the Court has disregarded patients' protection against unknown risks and "quackery" as well as the incalculable financial effects on the community of insureds.

Civil Rights↗