PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2719504

Ethics consultants and ethics committees.

Abstract

To address moral questions in patient care, hospitals and health care systems have enlisted the help of hospital ethicists, ethics committees, and ethics consultation services. Most physicians have not been trained in the concepts, skills, or language of clinical ethics, and few ethicists have been trained in clinical medicine, so neither group can fully identify, analyze, and resolve clinical ethical problems. Some ethics committees have undertaken clinical consultations themselves, but liability concerns and variable standards for membership hinder their efforts. An ethics consultation service comprising both physician-ethicists and nonphysician-ethicists brings complementary viewpoints to the management of particular cases. If they are to be effective consultants, however, nonphysician-ethicists need to be "clinicians": professionals who understand an individual patient's medical condition and personal situation well enough to help in managing the case. Ethics consultants and ethics committees may work together, but they have separate identities and distinct objectives: ethics consultants are responsible for patient care, while ethics committees are administrative bodies whose primary task is to advise in creating institutional policy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J La Puma, S E Toulmin. 1989. Ethics consultants and ethics committees.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2719504/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗