Joe Brierley
Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: Role, remit and representation
Brierley, Joe; Archard, Dave; Cave, Emma
Abstract
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.
Citation
Brierley, J., Archard, D., & Cave, E. (2021). Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: Role, remit and representation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(8), 549-552. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107092
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Mar 21, 2021 |
Online Publication Date | Apr 21, 2021 |
Publication Date | 2021-08 |
Deposit Date | Mar 29, 2021 |
Publicly Available Date | Aug 11, 2021 |
Journal | Journal of Medical Ethics |
Print ISSN | 0306-6800 |
Electronic ISSN | 1473-4257 |
Publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 47 |
Issue | 8 |
Pages | 549-552 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107092 |
Public URL | https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1250382 |
Publisher URL | https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/8/549.info |
Files
Accepted Journal Article
(661 Kb)
PDF
Publisher Licence URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Copyright Statement
© Authors (or their employer(s)) 2021. Reuse of this manuscript version (excluding any databases,
tables, diagrams, photographs and other images or illustrative material
included where a another copyright owner is identified) is permitted
strictly pursuant to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
You might also like
The infected blood scandal: lessons for clinical research.
(2024)
Journal Article
Liability For Rugby Related Neuro-Degenerative Disease: A Question of Tort
(2024)
Journal Article
Infected blood scandal – what you need to know
(2024)
Newspaper / Magazine
A Future Orientated View of Autonomy
(2023)
Book Chapter
The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology (1984)
(2023)
Book Chapter
Downloadable Citations
About Durham Research Online (DRO)
Administrator e-mail: dro.admin@durham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2025
Advanced Search