PubMed · 9762532
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Silberner. Remodelling IRBs.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9762532/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In an increasingly litigious society where ritual demands for accountability and "taking responsibility" are now commonplace, it is not surprising that members of clinical ethics committees (CECs) are becoming more aware of their potential legal liability. Yet the vulnerability of committee members to legal action is difficult to assess with any certainty. This is because the CECs which have been set up in the UK are--if the American experience is followed--likely to vary significantly in terms of their functions, procedures, composition, structures and authority. As a consequence it is difficult to generalize about the legal implications. Nevertheless, despite these difficulties this article will outline the broad legal principles governing the potential liability of committee members. It will also consider the relationship between CECs and the courts. It begins, however, with a brief analysis of the relationship between ethics and law in committee deliberations, and in particular of the role of law and legal expertise on CECs.
Each of the following papers gives an account of a different UK clinical ethics committee. The committees vary in the length of time they have been established, and also in the main focus of their work. The accounts discuss the development of the committees and some of the ethical problems that have been brought to them. The issues raised will be relevant for other National Health Service (NHS) trusts in the UK that wish to set up such a committee.