{"title":"Legal Liability of Clinical Ethics Services in Australia: \"Should I Be More Worried Than I Am?\"","authors":"Sharon L Feldman, Carolyn Johnston","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 2","pages":"345-357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.
临床伦理服务(CES)的一项重要职能是在具有伦理挑战性的病例中为医疗服务提供者提供决策支持。提交伦理咨询的病例很可能涉及意见分歧或冲突,或涉及适当医疗实践的界限。由于其争议性,此类病例还可能招致法律诉讼。随着 CES 在澳大利亚越来越普遍,本文探讨了 CES 及其成员的潜在法律责任。由于澳大利亚没有针对 CES 的诉讼报道,我们将借鉴国际经验和第一原则。通过将法律原则应用于假设的案例情景,我们考虑了过失索赔的前景,这是最有可能对 CES 提起的法律诉讼。我们的结论是,尽管目前不太可能胜诉,但作为伦理案例咨询对象的患者(和家属)可能会向 CES 提出过失索赔。