This paper provides a series of reflections on making the case to senior leaders for the introduction of clinical ethics support services within a UK hospital Trust at a time when clinical ethics committees are dwindling in the UK. The paper provides key considerations for those building a (business) case for clinical ethics support within hospitals by drawing upon published academic literature, and key reports from governmental and professional bodies. We also include extracts from documents relating to, and annual reports of, existing clinical ethics support within UK hospitals, as well as extracts from our own proposal submitted to the Trust Board. We aim for this paper to support other ethicists and/or health care staff contemplating introducing clinical ethics support into hospitals, to facilitate the process of making the case for clinical ethics support, and to contribute to the key debates in the literature around clinical ethics support. We conclude that there is a real need for investment in clinical ethics in the UK in order to build the evidence base required to support the wider introduction of clinical ethics support into UK hospitals. Furthermore, our perceptions of the purpose of, and perceived needs met through, clinical ethics support needs to shift to one of hospitals investing in their staff. Finally, we raise concerns over the optional nature of clinical ethics support available to practitioners within UK hospitals.

Ethical challenges for doctors and other health care professionals have existed since the practice of medicine began. Many of the oldest challenges live on to this day, such as who has more authority to make key decisions (autonomy vs. paternalism) and what are the boundaries of life at the beginning and at the end. Two powerful driving forces are new technologies and an ever-changing culture and society. The practice of medicine in intensive care units (ICUs) has been the source of many ethical challenges. Once firmly fixed concepts, such as death or \"brain death\" are now coming under increasing debate. In other areas, the concept of patient autonomy has been used to request life-prolonging therapies, once thought \"futile.\" New technologies for procreation have necessitated new ethical challenges as well. In this paper, we will use a series of cases, based on experiences from our hospital ethics committee, that occurred over the course of several years and illustrate ethical challenges which are either new to us or not new but growing in frequency due to technological or societal changes. Each one of these topics is complex and worthy of its own large review but for this overview, we will briefly discuss the key points of each dilemma.

Authorising euthanasia and assisted suicide with advance euthanasia directives (AEDs) is permitted, yet debated, in the Netherlands. We focus on a recent controversial case in which a Dutch woman with Alzheimer\'s disease was euthanised based on her AED. A Dutch euthanasia review committee found that the physician performing the euthanasia failed to follow due care requirements for euthanasia and assisted suicide. This case is notable because it is the first case to trigger a criminal investigation since the 2002 Dutch euthanasia law was enacted. Thus far, only brief descriptions of the case have been reported in English language journals and media. We provide a detailed description of the case, review the main challenges of preparing and applying AEDs for persons with dementia and briefly assess the adequacy of the current oversight system governing AEDs.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: All hospital trusts in Norway have clinical ethics committees (CEC). Some of them invite next of kin/patients to be present during the discussion of their case. This study looks closer at how parents of seriously ill children have experienced being involved in CEC discussions.
METHODS: Ten next of kin of six seriously ill children were interviewed. Their cases were discussed in two CECs between April of 2011 and March of 2014. The main ethical dilemma was limitation of life-prolonging treatment. Health care personnel who could elucidate the case were also present in the discussion. The interviewer observed each discussion and then interviewed the next of kin shortly after the meeting, following a structured interview guide.
RESULTS: All next of kin emphasized that it had been important for them to be present. They stressed the important role of the CEC chair and appreciated that their case was discussed in a systematic way. Some next of kin appreciated that the child\'s impending death was discussed openly, and believed that this would facilitate their future grieving. Having had an opportunity to hear all the arguments behind the decision to be made would probably help them to accept the road ahead. All of them felt that they were taken seriously and listened to. They felt that they had added vital information to the discussion. All but one couple did not want any decision-making responsibility, some of them even worried that they might have influenced the discussion too much.
CONCLUSIONS: None of the next of kin felt that being present during the CEC discussion had been too heavy a burden. On the contrary, they claimed that their presence in a CEC discussion may add vital information to the discussion and may improve the quality of the decision. It is important that the CEC\'s role is explained to them so they are well prepared for what to expect. They need to be followed up after the discussion.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer care involves many ethical concerns. Deciding on treatment levels and providing care that infringes on the child\'s growing autonomy are known ethical concerns that involve the whole professional team around the child\'s care.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore healthcare professionals\' experiences of participating in ethics case reflection sessions in childhood cancer care.
METHODS: Data collection by observations, individual interviews, and individual encounters. Data analysis were conducted following grounded theory methodology.
METHODS: Healthcare professionals working at a publicly funded children\'s hospital in Sweden participated in ethics case reflection sessions in which ethical issues concerning clinical cases were reflected on.
METHODS: The children\'s and their parents\' integrity was preserved through measures taken to protect patient identity during ethics case reflection sessions. The study was approved by a regional ethical review board.
RESULTS: Consolidating care by clarifying perspectives emerged. Consolidating care entails striving for common care goals and creating a shared view of care and the ethical concern in the specific case. The inter-professional perspectives on the ethical aspects of care are clarified by the participants\' articulated views on the case. Different approaches for deliberating ethics are used during the sessions including raising values and making sense, leading to unifying interactions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that ethical concerns could be eased by implementing ethics case reflection sessions. Conflicting perspectives can be turned into unifying interactions in the healthcare professional team with the common aim to achieve good pediatric care.
CONCLUSIONS: Ethics case reflection sessions is valuable as it permits the discussion of values in healthcare-related issues in childhood cancer care. Clarifying perspectives, on the ethical concerns, enables healthcare professionals to reflect on the most reasonable and ethically defensible care for the child. A consolidated care approach would be valuable for both the child and the healthcare professionals because of the common care goals.

The attention for Moral case deliberation (MCD) has increased over the past years. Previous research on MCD is often written from the perspective of MCD experts or MCD participants and we lack a more distant view to the role of MCD in Dutch health care institutions in general. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the state of the art concerning MCD in the Netherlands. As part of a larger national study on clinical ethics support in the Netherlands, we will focus on the prevalence and characteristics of MCD in Dutch health. A mixed methods design was used in which we combined two survey questionnaires (sent to all health care institutions), two focus groups and 17 individual interviews with top managers or ethics support staff. The findings demonstrate that the prevalence of MCD is relatively high in Dutch health care (44 % has MCD), especially in mental health care (in which MCD is mentioned as present in the organization by 62 % of the respondents). Institutions with MCD differ from institutions without MCD concerning size, kind of problems and importance of ideological background. Characteristic of MCD is that it often exists for 3 years or more, has a high participation of health professionals and middle managers and is both organized scheduled as unscheduled. As well integration in existing policy as key persons emerge as important issues in relation to the positioning of MCD. We conclude that MCD is a part of an integrated ethics policy and serves as a (bottom up) catalyst for such an integrated ethics policy.

A central task for clinical ethics consultants and committees (CEC) is providing analysis of, and advice on, prospective or retrospective clinical cases. However, several kinds of biases may threaten the integrity, relevance or quality of the CEC\'s deliberation. Bias should be identified and, if possible, reduced or counteracted. This paper provides a systematic classification of kinds of bias that may be present in a CEC\'s case deliberation. Six kinds of bias are discussed, with examples, as to their significance and risk factors. Possible remedies are suggested. The potential for bias is greater when the case deliberation is performed by an individual ethics consultant than when an entire clinical ethics committee is involved.

Futility disputes are increasing and courts are slowly abandoning their historical reluctance to engage these contentious issues, particularly when confronted with inappropriate surrogate demands for aggressive treatment. Use of the judicial system to resolve futility disputes inevitably brings media attention and requires clinicians, hospitals, and families to debate these deep moral conflicts in the public eye. A recent case in Minnesota, In re Emergency Guardianship of Albert Barnes, explores this emerging trend and the complex responsibilities of clinicians and hospital administrators seeking to replace an unfaithful surrogate demanding aggressive therapy. Use of the courts requires the coordinated commitment of significant institutional resources, management of intense media scrutiny and individual and organizational courage to enter the unpredictable world of litigation. Given the dearth of legislative guidance on medical futility, individual clinicians and institutions will continue to bear the difficult responsibility for resolution of individual futility disputes. The Barnes case illustrates how one institution successfully used the judicial system to replace an unfaithful surrogate, cease the provision of inappropriate aggressive care, and stimulate a community dialogue about appropriate care at the end of life.

Policy work is often cited as one of the primary functions of Hospital Ethics Committees (HECs), along with consultation and education. Hospital policies can have far reaching effects on a wide array of stakeholders including, care providers, patients, families, the culture of the organisation and the community at large. In comparison with the wealth of information available about the emerging practice of ethics consultation, relatively little attention has been paid to the policy work of HECs. In this paper, we hope to advance the development of best practices in HEC policy work by describing the quality improvement process that we undertook at Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. In the first section of the paper we describe the context of our HEC policy work, and the shortcomings of our historical review process. In subsequent sections, we detail the quality improvement project we undertook in 2010, the results of the project and the specific tools we developed to enhance the quality of HEC policy work. Our goal in sharing this organisational case study is to prompt other HECs to publish qualitative descriptions of their policy work, in order to generate a body of knowledge that can inform the development of best practices for ethics policy review.