UNASSIGNED: Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020, a CEC was established in an Oncology Research Hospital in the North of Italy. This paper describes the development process and the activities performed 20 months from the CEC\'s implementation, to increase knowledge about CEC\'s implementation strategy.
METHODS: We collected quantitative data related to number and characteristics of CEC activities carried out from October 2020 to June 2022 using the CEC internal database. Data were reported descriptively and compared with data from the literature to provide a complete overview of the CEC\'s development and implementation process.
METHODS: The study has been conducted at the local health authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia. It is a report of the activities provided by the CEC, where no HPs or patients were involved.
METHODS: The report is part of a larger study named EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC), which has been approved by the Local Ethics Committee (AUSLRE Protocollo n° 2022/0026554 of 24/02/2022). EvaCEC is also the first author\'s PhD project.
RESULTS: In total, the CEC performed 7 ethics consultations (EC), published three policies related to particular ethical questions of clinical and organizational practice, provided one educational online course on ethics consultation targeting employed HPs, and promoted a specific dissemination process among the different departments of the LHA. According to our results, the CEC widely fulfilled the standard threefold set of clinical ethics support services tasks (namely, ethics consultation, ethics education, and policy development), but further investigations are needed to evaluate the CEC\'s impact on clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may increase knowledge regarding the composition, role, and tasks of a CEC in an Italian setting, informing future strategies and efforts to regulate these institutions officially.

Would primary care services benefit from the aid of a clinical ethics committee (CEC)? The implementation of CECs in primary care in four Norwegian municipalities was supported and their activities followed for 2.5 years. In this study, the CECs\' structure and activities are described, with special emphasis on what characterizes the cases they have discussed. In total, the four CECs discussed 54 cases from primary care services, with the four most common topics being patient autonomy, competence and coercion; professionalism; cooperation and disagreement with next of kin; and priority setting, resource use and quality. Nursing homes and home care were the primary care services most often involved. Next of kin were present in 10 case deliberations, whereas patients were never present. The investigation indicates that it might be feasible for new CECs to attain a high level of activity including case deliberations within the time frame. It also confirms that significant, characteristic and complex moral problems arise in primary care services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified pre-existing challenges in healthcare in Africa. Long-standing health inequities, embedded in the continent over centuries, have been laid bare and have raised complex ethical dilemmas. While there are very few clinical ethics committees (CECs) in Africa, the demand for such services exists and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The views of African healthcare professionals or bioethicists on the role of CECs in Africa have not been explored or documented previously. In this study, we aim to explore such perspectives, as well as the challenges preventing the establishment of CECs in Africa.
Twenty healthcare professionals and bioethicists from Africa participated in this qualitative study that utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Themes were identified through thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended responses.
Kenya and South Africa are the only countries on the continent with formal established CECs. The following themes emerged from this qualitative study: (1) Lack of formal CECs and resolution of ethical dilemmas; (2) Role of CECs during COVID-19; (3) Ethical dilemmas presented to CECs pre-COVID-19; (4) Lack of awareness of CECs; (5) Lack of qualified bioethicists or clinical ethicists; (6) Limited resources to establish CECs; (7) Creating interest in CECs and networking.
This study illustrates the importance of clinical ethics education among African HCPs and bioethicists, more so now when COVID-19 has posed a host of clinical and ethical challenges to public and private healthcare systems. The challenges and barriers identified will inform the establishment of CECs or clinical ethics consultation services (CESs) in the region. The study results have triggered an idea for the creation of a network of African CECs.

Clinical Ethics Consultations (CEC) are an important tool for physicians in solving difficult cases. They are extremely common in North America and to a lesser extent also present in Europe. However, there is little data on this practice in Poland. We present results of a survey of 521 physicians practising in Poland concerning their opinion on CECs and related practices. We analysed the data looking at such issues as CECs\' perceived availability, use of CECs, and perceived usefulness of such support. Physicians in our study generally encounter hard ethics cases, even-surprisingly-those who do not work in hospitals. Most physicians have no CEC access, and those that do still do not employ CECs. However, physicians perceive this form of support as useful-even more so among actual users of CECs. We compared these findings with similar studies from other European countries and the North America. We point out peculiarities of our results as compared to those in other countries, with some possible explanations. We hope the results may encourage regulatory debate on the need to formally introduce CECs into the Polish healthcare system.

As hospitals have grown more complex, the ethical concerns they confront have grown correspondingly complicated. Many hospitals have consequently developed health care ethics programs (HCEPs) that include far more than ethics consultation services alone. Yet systematic research on these programs is lacking.
Based on a national, cross-sectional survey of a stratified sample of 600 US hospitals, we report on the prevalence, scope, activities, staffing, workload, financial compensation, and greatest challenges facing HCEPs.
Among 372 hospitals whose informants responded to an online survey, 97% of hospitals have HCEPs. Their scope includes clinical ethics functions in virtually all hospitals, but includes other functions in far fewer hospitals: ethical leadership (35.7%), regulatory compliance (29.0%), business ethics (26.2%), and research ethics (12.6%). HCEPs are responsible for providing ongoing ethics education to various target audiences including all staff (77.0%), nurses (59.9%), staff physicians (49.0%), hospital leadership (44.2%), medical residents (20.3%) and the community/general public (18.4%). HCEPs staff are most commonly involved in policy work through review of existing policies but are less often involved in development of new policies. HCEPs have an ethics representative in executive leadership in 80.5% of hospitals, have representation on other hospital committees in 40.7%, are actively engaged in community outreach in 22.6%, and lead large-scale ethics quality improvement initiatives in 17.7%. In general, major teaching hospitals and urban hospitals have the most highly integrated ethics programs with the broadest scope and greatest number of activities. Larger hospitals, academically affiliated hospitals, and urban hospitals have significantly more individuals performing HCEP work and significantly more individuals receiving financial compensation specifically for that work. Overall, the most common greatest challenge facing HCEPs is resource shortages, whereas underutilization is the most common greatest challenge for hospitals with fewer than 100 beds. Respondents\' strategies for managing challenges include staff training and additional funds.
While this study must be cautiously interpreted due to its limitations, the findings may be useful for understanding the characteristics of HCEPs in US hospitals and the factors associated with these characteristics. This information may contribute to exploring ways to strengthen HCEPs.

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015.

Various types of health settings use clinical ethics committees (CEC) to deal with the ethical issues that confront both healthcare providers and their patients. Although these committees are now more common than ever, changes in the content of ethical dilemmas through the years is still a relatively unexplored area of research. The current study examines the major topics brought to the CEC of a psychiatric hospital in Israel and explores whether there were changes in their frequency across nearly three decades. The present paper reports on a thematic analysis of the written verbatim transcripts from 466 ethical topics brought to the CEC between the years 1991 and 2016. The following major topics related to ethical dilemmas were identified: confidentiality (30%), patient autonomy (23%), health records (14%), dual relationship (12%), allocation of resources (11%), inappropriate professional and personal conduct (9%), and multicultural sensitivity (1%). Topics related to confidentiality increased significantly over the years, as did inappropriate professional and personal conduct. In addition, the analysis showed that the content of the ethical cases and the resolutions suggested by the CEC also varied over the years. In conclusion, although most ethical topics have remained relatively stable over time, the discourse around them has evolved, requiring a dynamic assessment and reflection by the mental health practitioners serving as members of a CEC.

This statement explores the implications of reproduction by single individuals and unmarried couples and pertains to diverse sexuality and gender (DSG) or cisgender heterosexual persons. The statement concludes that individuals and couples should have access to fertility services irrespective of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. This document replaces the previous version of this document entitled \"Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons: a committee opinion\", published in December 2013 (Fertil Steril 2013;100:1524-7).

The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees (not to be confused with research ethics committees) has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X ([2020] EWHC 1958 (Fam), [21]-[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK.

Pediatric ethics consultations are important but understudied, with little known about consultations\' contextual attributes, which may influence how ethically problematic situations are perceived and addressed.
We analyzed data regarding 245 pediatric clinical ethics consultations performed between 2013 and 2018 at a large children\'s hospital. Prespecified data elements included 17 core problematic issues that initiate consultations, 9 ethical considerations identified by the consultation service, and 7 relational, emotional, and pragmatic contextual attributes of the consultation. The main process measure was the cumulative consultation process, ranging from one-on-one discussions with the requestor, to meeting with the clinical team, separate meetings with the patient or family and the clinical team, or combined meeting with the patient or family and the clinical team.
The most-prevalent core problematic issues were intensity or limitation of treatment (38.8%) and treatment adherence and refusal (31%). Common pertinent ethical considerations were best interest (79.2%), benefits versus harms of treatment (51%), and autonomy and decision-making (46.5%). A total of 39.2% of consults culminated with a meeting with the clinical team, 9.4% with separate meetings, and 8.2% with a meeting with all parties. Common contextual attributes were discord (43.3%), acknowledged dilemma (33.5%), and articulate disagreement (29.8%). In exploratory analyses, specific contextual attributes were associated with the core problematic issue that initiated the consultation and with how the consultative process culminated.
Pediatric ethics consultations have contextual attributes that in exploratory analyses are associated with specific types of problems and, to a lesser degree, with the cumulative ethics consultation process.