{"title":"非西方国家医院伦理委员会的有效性:十年经验的启示","authors":"M. Murat Civaner","doi":"10.1007/s41649-024-00289-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are relatively new in non-Western countries. This article examines the effectiveness of a HEC established in Bursa/Turkey over ten years, aiming to contribute insights for the wider implementation and enhancement of HECs. The evaluative methodology combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess its effectiveness. Patients are the primary users of the HEC, although applications from physicians, hospital managers, and the Patient Rights Board are also observed. Surgical specialities account for the majority of applications, particularly from obstetrics and gynecology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. The study identifies the types of applications, with malpractice claims, ethical inquiries, and access-related complaints being the most common. Despite many healthcare professionals encountering ethical dilemmas, the HEC was underutilized for consultations due to factors such as low awareness, perceived autonomy challenges, and skepticism regarding its efficacy. Additionally, the study describes how HEC recommendations contribute to policy development, addressing organizational issues and promoting ethical practices. The decision-making process within the HEC was also scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity of a structured methodology for moral deliberation. Concerns are raised about committee members lacking specific training in ethical analysis, potentially resulting in biases and suboptimal decisions. Contextual factors, including institutional culture and economic considerations, are also recognized for their influence on decision-making. This analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of HECs and the challenges they face in achieving effectiveness. It underscores the need for standardized measures, improved training for committee members, and contextual awareness to enhance the impact and functionality of HECs in healthcare institutions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"16 4","pages":"615 - 634"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience\",\"authors\":\"M. Murat Civaner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41649-024-00289-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are relatively new in non-Western countries. This article examines the effectiveness of a HEC established in Bursa/Turkey over ten years, aiming to contribute insights for the wider implementation and enhancement of HECs. The evaluative methodology combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess its effectiveness. Patients are the primary users of the HEC, although applications from physicians, hospital managers, and the Patient Rights Board are also observed. Surgical specialities account for the majority of applications, particularly from obstetrics and gynecology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. The study identifies the types of applications, with malpractice claims, ethical inquiries, and access-related complaints being the most common. Despite many healthcare professionals encountering ethical dilemmas, the HEC was underutilized for consultations due to factors such as low awareness, perceived autonomy challenges, and skepticism regarding its efficacy. Additionally, the study describes how HEC recommendations contribute to policy development, addressing organizational issues and promoting ethical practices. The decision-making process within the HEC was also scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity of a structured methodology for moral deliberation. Concerns are raised about committee members lacking specific training in ethical analysis, potentially resulting in biases and suboptimal decisions. Contextual factors, including institutional culture and economic considerations, are also recognized for their influence on decision-making. This analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of HECs and the challenges they face in achieving effectiveness. It underscores the need for standardized measures, improved training for committee members, and contextual awareness to enhance the impact and functionality of HECs in healthcare institutions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"615 - 634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00289-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00289-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience
Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are relatively new in non-Western countries. This article examines the effectiveness of a HEC established in Bursa/Turkey over ten years, aiming to contribute insights for the wider implementation and enhancement of HECs. The evaluative methodology combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess its effectiveness. Patients are the primary users of the HEC, although applications from physicians, hospital managers, and the Patient Rights Board are also observed. Surgical specialities account for the majority of applications, particularly from obstetrics and gynecology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. The study identifies the types of applications, with malpractice claims, ethical inquiries, and access-related complaints being the most common. Despite many healthcare professionals encountering ethical dilemmas, the HEC was underutilized for consultations due to factors such as low awareness, perceived autonomy challenges, and skepticism regarding its efficacy. Additionally, the study describes how HEC recommendations contribute to policy development, addressing organizational issues and promoting ethical practices. The decision-making process within the HEC was also scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity of a structured methodology for moral deliberation. Concerns are raised about committee members lacking specific training in ethical analysis, potentially resulting in biases and suboptimal decisions. Contextual factors, including institutional culture and economic considerations, are also recognized for their influence on decision-making. This analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of HECs and the challenges they face in achieving effectiveness. It underscores the need for standardized measures, improved training for committee members, and contextual awareness to enhance the impact and functionality of HECs in healthcare institutions.
期刊介绍:
Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.