Title |
Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection
|
---|---|
Published in |
HEC Forum, August 2015
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10730-015-9291-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Morten Magelssen, Reidar Pedersen, Reidun Førde |
Abstract |
How may clinical ethics committees (CECs) inspire ethical reflection among healthcare professionals? How may they deal with organizational ethics issues? In recent years, Norwegian CECs have attempted different activites that stretch or go beyond the standard trio of education, consultation, and policy work. We studied the novel activities of Norwegian CECs by examining annual reports and interviewing CEC members. Through qualitative analysis we identified nine categories of novel CEC activities, which we describe by way of examples. In light of the findings, we argue that some novel working methods may be well suited to promote ethical reflection among clinicians, and that the CEC may be a suitable venue for discussing issues of organizational ethics. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 1 | 33% |
New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 33% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
Other | 1 | 11% |
Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 33% |
Philosophy | 2 | 22% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
Psychology | 1 | 11% |
Computer Science | 1 | 11% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 1 | 11% |