Will medically-assisted suicide mean the rebirth of (clinical) ethics committees in Italy?

The Italian Constitutional Court has held that, in certain specific circumstances, prosecution for assisted suicide, regulated by Article 580 of the Criminal Code, is not compatible with the Constitution. The circumstances in question relate to individuals who are being kept alive by life-sustaining treatments, who are fully capable of taking free, informed decisions and are suffering from irreversible conditions that are a source of intolerable physical or mental suffering. The Court has held that the Ethics Committees must assess a request for assisted suicide made by an individual meeting these conditions. The decision requires the identification of the Ethics Committee authorised to issue authorisation in such cases and a guarantee that these Ethics Committees are able to deal with this type of issue. The Court's decision is an important opportunity to establish and promote clinical Ethics Committees, which are not nationally regulated in Italy and exist in very small numbers in only a few parts of the country.

[Ethics Committees in Portugal: Old and New Challenges]

N/a.

Clinical ethics consultation among Italian ethics committee: A mixed method study

Objective

The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings.

Methods

The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants.

Results

Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy.

71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents.

Conclusion

To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

["The ethical risks associated with artificial intelligence must be identified and regulated"]

Artificial intelligence and its applications in healthcare inevitably raise ethical questions. The 'human guarantee' is at the heart of the discussions. Interview with Cynthia Fleury-Perkins, member of the French national advisory ethics committee and holder of the Humanities and Health Chair of the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers.

Dealing with Ethical Concerns in Suicide Research: A Survey of Australian Researchers

Given the increasing trend in suicide mortality and its burden on individuals, families and communities, ethically sound research is crucial to improve the prevention of suicidal behaviour. However, few studies have looked at the experiences of researchers in obtaining ethics approval for their studies. This study addressed this gap by investigating researchers’ experiences in obtaining ethics approval and how they dealt with the concerns raised by ethics committees. Respondents were recruited from September to November 2018 through the Australian Suicide Prevention Research Leaders Network, and 33 respondents (35%) completed the study survey, comprising forced-choice and open-ended questions. Respondents most commonly reported concerns from ethics committees regarding potential harm to participants and researchers’ responsibilities to participants within the context of intervention and evaluation studies. Most researchers modified their ethics application and/or consulted with their ethics committee to reply to the concerns raised. Most respondents perceived the impact of the modification as positive or neutral. The study concludes that researchers may anticipate potential concerns of ethics committees. Improved understanding of how ethics committees work and dialogue between researchers and ethics committees should sustain the quality in suicide-related research.

International Capacity-Building Initiatives for National Bioethics Committees

During the last two decades, national bioethics committees have been established in many countries all over the world. They vary with respect to their structure, composition, and working methods, but the main functions are similar. They are supposed to facilitate public debate on controversial bioethical issues and produce opinions and recommendations that can help inform the public and policy‐makers. The dialogue among national bioethics committees is also increasingly important in the globalized world, where biomedical technologies raise ethical dilemmas that traverse national borders. It is not surprising, therefore, that the committees are established and active in the technologically advanced countries. There have also been a few international capacity‐building initiatives in bioethics that have had a dual task: networking among existing national bioethics committees and helping establish such committees in those countries that still lack them. The problem is that, due to a lack of information, it is not clear what problems and challenges committees face in the transitioning societies often characterized as low‐ and middle‐income countries.

The Virtues of National Ethics Committees

The United Kingdom has many bodies that play their part in carrying out the work of national ethics committees, but its nearest equivalent of a U.S. presidential bioethics commission is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, established in 1991. The Council is charged with examining ethical questions raised by developments in biological and medical research, publishing reports, and making representations to appropriate bodies in order to respond to or anticipate public concern. It is a nongovernment organization with no defined or guaranteed channels of influence. It has no authority merely by virtue of the position it holds. Rather, it has established relational authority based on its reputation. Unlike the U.S. bioethics commission, it is not part of executive government, nor is it constituted to contribute to the legislative branch, as does the French Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique. Its nongovernmental status notwithstanding, the Nuffield Council's work affects the U.K. government and the British public, and the Council has achieved international recognition for its reports. I was the chairperson from 2012 to 2017 and draw on my experience in this piece to consider three key audiences: governments, publics, and the international community.

Building the Next Bioethics Commission

At every moment, somewhere in the world, a group of men and women are sitting around a table deliberating about an ethical issue posed by medicine and research, whether as a research ethics committee; a hospital or clinical ethics committee; a stem‐cell review committee; a gene transfer research committee; a biobank ethics committee; an ethics advisory committee for a medical or nursing association or nongovernmental organization; a state, provincial, national, or intergovernmental bioethics committee; or an ad hoc panel examining a particular development or case. However, the last national committee in the United States, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, held its final meeting at the end of August 2016 and closed its doors. Should we regret its departure? I believe that the United States would benefit from having another national bioethics advisory body, but I do not think that the commission should simply have continued under a new president in the same form. Instead, looking at the experience of that commission and its six predecessors—who they were, how they worked, the functions they served, and the problems they experienced—we can derive some useful ideas for anyone planning to build the next commission.

National Bioethics Commissions as Educators

As has become tradition, executive directors of United States' presidential bioethics committees offer reflections about their experience shortly after the orderly shutdown of the commission staff. After the records are filed according to government records regulations; after all the staff members, who are hired into temporary positions that must be renewed every two years, have secured permanent employment; after preparations are made to ensure that the next commission staff (should there be one) has a budget and standard operating procedures in order to begin its work in a timely manner; after the lights are turned out for the last time, the executive director makes the final climb up the stairs into the sunlight and reflects on the whirlwind. There is much about my work with the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues that deserves comment, but one aspect of the commission that has been especially valuable to me is its work to educate the nation on bioethical issues. This is, moreover, a contribution in which the commission staff was central, and it is one that, as an ethics educator myself, I will cherish deeply.

Ripples: What to Expect When You Serve on a Bioethics Commission

Cloning was the issue that put the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on the map, but the first clue that NBAC would address cloning was a terse fax from the White House to each of us who served on the Commission. The fax noted that with the birth of the sheep named Dolly, mammalian cloning was now a reality, and it tasked NBAC with providing advice on the ethics of human cloning and how the nation should respond to it. We were given ninety days to report our findings. That's a very tight deadline for a report written by a committee, but we met it, and along the way, I learned important lessons. My goal in this essay is to share what I learned at the ramparts of what I will call, with apologies to George Lucas, the Cloning Wars and through NBAC's work on five additional reports.

Health research institutional mapping: an Eastern Mediterranean Regional perspective

BACKGROUND

Research-conducive environments are mandatory for planning, implementing and translating research findings into evidence-informed health policies.

AIM

This study aimed at comprehensive situation analysis of health research institutions in the Region.

METHODS

We collected data on: institutional characteristics, research scope, capacity building, ethics, governance and resources.

RESULTS

We contacted 575 institutions, of which, 223 (38.8%) responded, indicating that they conducted population research (82%). Reported studies were mostly in medicine, public health and epidemiology, while reported capacity building mainly focused on scientific writing (20.6%), research proposal writing (18%) and quantitative research methods (17%). Most institutions reported having collaborating partners (82%) - predominantly national (77%). Sixty-four percent of institutions received their own funding, with 48% reporting always having access to national databases.

CONCLUSION

Governments in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and international funding agencies are called upon to support health research production through increasing allocated support and capacity building in health research.

The Development and Rationale for CECA's Case-Based Study Guide

This article discusses the approach of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Advisory Committee (CECA) in developing A Case-Based Study Guide for Addressing Patient-Centered Ethical Issues in Health Care. This article addresses the processes used by the CECA, its use of pivot questions intended to encourage critical reflection, and the target audience of this work. It first considers the salience of case studies in general education and their relevance for training ethics consultants. Second, it discusses the enfolding approach used in presenting the case material designed to engage the trainee in the details of the case while stimulating critical reflection. And, third, this article briefly comments on the target audience with the caveat that even superbly developed cases are prone to misuse, although that prospect should not deter their development.

Health data research in New Zealand: updating the ethical governance framework

Demand for health data for secondary research is increasing, both in New Zealand and worldwide. The New Zealand government has established a large research database, the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), which facilitates research, and an independent ministerial advisory group, the Data Futures Partnership (DFP), to engage with citizens, the private sector and non-government organisations (NGOs) to facilitate trusted data use and strengthen the data ecosystem in New Zealand. We commend these steps but argue that key strategies for effective health-data governance remain absent in New Zealand. In particular, we argue in favour of the establishment of: (1) a specialist Health and Disability Ethics Committee (HDEC) to review applications for secondary-use data research; (2) a public registry of approved secondary-use research projects (similar to a clinical trials registry); and (3) detailed guidelines for the review and approval of secondary-use data research. We present an ethical framework based on the values of public interest, trust and transparency to justify these innovations.

Reflections on Democratic Deliberation in Bioethics

Over the course of six years and more than two dozen meetings, members of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues learned so many things: about emerging science; technological challenges; citizen engagement; the public's, experts', and our own understandings and misperceptions; and even the nature of our own most cherished values. Our commission's commitment to democratic deliberation began deliberatively, when we decided (in the summer of 2010) upon basic principles to guide our first report. At the time, Craig Venter had just announced that he had used techniques of synthetic biology to "create life," albeit the most elementary form of life, from nonliving building blocks. Headlines alternated between applauding Venter for creating life and accusing him of playing God. It was one of those all-too-frequent instances where sound-bite democracy was headed toward shedding more heat and fear than light and understanding. The commission was asked to take synthetic biology under review and make recommendations to President Obama on how to proceed. We saw the need to question the most salient facts of the matter: what were the fundamental values at stake in this kind of discovery?

The Past, Present, and Future of Mexico's National Bioethics Commission

The establishment of Mexico's National Bioethics Commission (Comisión Nacional de Bioética), in 1992, was conceived within the context of a global movement aimed at raising awareness of the ethical implications of technological and scientific development, especially in biomedicine. In 2005, a new decree put the commission under the scope of the Secretariat of Health and granted it technical and operational autonomy, allowing it to become a regulatory agency aimed at promoting a culture of bioethics, encouraging reflection on human health, and developing guidelines for health care, research, and education, through a global, secular, and democratic perspective. The commission became the leading actor in the strategy for institutionalizing bioethics in Mexico after reforms to the country's General Health Act in 2011, which required that public, social assistance, or private health care facilities establish a hospital bioethics committee to address bioethical dilemmas or issues and, when relevant, a research ethics committee to address research with human subjects. This assignment has shifted the focus of the activities and goals of the National Bioethics Commission toward establishing these committees in line with current regulations and developing mechanisms to ensure that they operate with the highest standards of ethical conduct, performance, and accountability.

Inclusion, Access, and Civility in Public Bioethics

I could tell many war stories about my experience serving on the President's Council on Bioethics-one of the most controversial national bioethics commissions so far-but I want to focus instead on how the experience influenced my views on bioethics, politics, and the potential contributions of national commissions. The executive order that established the Council directed it to consider policy questions, but it spoke primarily of providing a forum for national discussion, inquiry, and education. In this sense, the Council's mission departed from that of other national bioethics commissions, which have had more direct policy functions. Most bioethics commissions consider a range of ethical positions in their reports, but their primary objective has been to develop consensus recommendations on whatever topic they are addressing. The Council's executive order moved away from the consensus-based policy model and called for deep attention to contested ideas. Although the search for consensus may be the most suitable approach for policy activities, it can lead to a bland and anemic version of bioethics. The Council sought to contribute thick bioethical analysis.

Making the Choices Necessary to Make a Difference: The Responsibility of National Bioethics Commissions

In this essay, I offer some reflections on how the topics were identified and approached by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, on which I had the honor to serve, in the hope that the reflections may be useful to future national bioethics commissions. In the executive order that established the bioethics commission, President Obama explicitly recognized the ethical imperative to responsibly pursue science, innovation, and advances in biomedical research and health care, and the importance of national attention to these issues. The bioethics commission prioritized practicable, actionable, targeted recommendations. Like most earlier U.S. national bioethics commissions, President Obama's commission did not undertake projects on significant and troublesome issues related to health and health care that were not associated with new science or technology. Issues such as health care access, health care delivery, opioid addiction, end-of-life care, and physician-aid-in-dying are topical and ethically complex areas of significance to bioethics, and they are also being discussed and debated by the public, the media, and policy-makers. In my view, there are good reasons to select and prioritize projects as well as a justification for confining commission efforts to issues related to novel science and emerging technologies, when there is only one national-level bioethics commission that has been established by the Office of the President.

Ethical Principles, Process, and the Work of Bioethics Commissions

Shortly after the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues was constituted in 2010 and days before the commission members were to join a conference call to discuss possible topics for their deliberation, Craig Venter held a press conference announcing that his lab had created a synthetic chromosome for a species of mycoplasma and had inserted this genetic material into organisms of another species of mycoplasma (the genes of which had been deactivated), transforming the host species into the donor species. While not overtly claiming to have "created life in the test tube," Venter's publicity seemed cleverly designed to provoke the media into reporting his discovery in just that way. The resulting uproar caused President Obama to give his new bioethics commission the assignment of investigating the ethics of the emerging field of synthetic biology. The commission went right to work. It formed working groups to deliberate about parts of the report, feeding ideas and language to the staff members who would do the actual writing, and then present the working group suggestions to the commission as a whole for public deliberation at open meetings. One of those working groups was charged with coming up with ethical principles that would guide the analysis. Having served as a member of that working group, I report here on the process by which these principles emerged and reflect upon the suitability of that process for the work of public bioethics commissions.

Challenges Working with Presidential Bioethics Commissions

Presidential commissions come and go by design, and it is reasonable to wonder about the impact of their recommendations. I have been involved in the work of two presidential commissions: as a member of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (from 1994 to 1995) and as senior consultant to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (from 1999 to 2000) for its report on multinational research. I continue to reflect on and look for the impact of both these commissions. ACHRE's charter included the review of experiments with ionizing radiation sponsored or conducted by the United States government since the 1940s. The committee was also charged with investigating specific intentional releases of radiation into the environment. ACHRE had a somewhat unique difficulty built into its work: the need to make retrospective ethical judgments. With the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, my main role as senior consultant consisted of writing chapters of the report on multinational research for the commissioners' approval. A more important concern for me as a hired consultant was how to maintain intellectual and moral integrity. Unlike when writing scholarly papers, where I can express my own views, when I was drafting text for a presidential commission, the commissioners' views took precedence over my own when we disagreed. I wondered, how much could I comply with the commissioners' positions without compromising my own integrity?

A Broader Bioethics: Topic Selection and the Impact of National Bioethics Commissions

Comparative assessments of national bioethics commissions in the United States commonly look at the differences among these groups over their forty-year history. A particular focus has been differences in the membership, mission, methods, and reports of the President's Council on Bioethics, which was active from 2001 until 2009, compared to those of its predecessors and the recent Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, active from 2009 until 2016. The differences are real, but disproportionate attention to them can obscure the substantial similarities in commissions' structure and function throughout the history of expert bioethics advice to government. As the Trump administration considers what role, if any, a bioethics commission will play in its work, it would be well served to consider how choices regarding the design of such a group and the topics it examines can best facilitate the unique contributions it can make to the government and to the country.

What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions

In the forty-year history of U.S. bioethics commissions, these government-sanctioned forums have often demonstrated their power to address pressing problems and to enable policy change. For example, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established in 1974, left a legacy of reports that were translated into regulations and had an enormous practical impact. And the 1982 report Splicing Life, by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, became the basis for the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee as well as for the Food and Drug Administration's developing "Points to Consider" when contemplating the introduction of recombinant DNA into human beings. Some efforts of bioethics commissions, however, are not tightly connected to policy change or to outcomes directly linked to a specific report. While direct policy impact is indeed a useful metric for government bioethics commissions, it is not their only legitimate utility. For instance, bioethics commissions can also be incubators for deliberation on a hot topic, giving policy-makers time to think through options while the political heat has some time to dissipate. Or a bioethics commission may stake out a position that enables a politician to take action while not necessarily following its recommendations.

Ethics and Regulation in Organ Procurement Research

This article explores the role of ethics and regulation in human research conducted by organ procurement agencies; basic ethical principles for human research are outlined. Organ procurement agencies are not required to observe federal regulations; however, voluntary adherence will ensure that procurement research is conducted according to current standards of ethical practice. Although most organ procurement research will qualify for exempt status, this determination should be made by an institutional review board. Even if studies qualify for exempt status, there is a moral presumption that informed consent should be sought, unless certain narrow conditions for waiver of consent are satisfied. Finally, when future research utilizing organ procurement records is anticipated, procurement coordinators should provide sufficiently detailed information to families about such plans to permit their advance informed consent to research activities.

Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication?

National regulations governing human subjects research differ with regard to whether they require survey research to be overseen by institutional ethics boards or committees. In cases where ethical review has been waived, or was provided by an individual or group other than an institutional ethics board, journals may question the appropriateness of the waiver or alternative review when making determinations about whether to accept the manuscript for publication. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance for journals to consider when making determinations about the necessity of ethical review for survey research projects. We review the functions of ethics oversight and consider the importance of those functions within the context of survey research. In survey research, no intervention is delivered to research participants. As a result, there is no risk of physical harm to individuals who participate. However, there can be a risk of informational or psychological harms. In situations where there is greater than minimal risk of informational or psychological harms, the survey research should have received institutional ethics oversight. Additionally, survey research projects that enroll vulnerable individuals with diminished autonomy should receive institutional ethics oversight. We hope that this article leads to further guidance on this subject by authoritative group such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Clinical ethics support services in New Zealand-tailoring services to meet the needs of doctors

AIMS

To better understand senior doctors' attitudes to clinical ethics support services at Capital and Coast District Health Board (CCDHB), in order to better tailor clinical ethics support services in New Zealand to the needs of doctors.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 14 senior doctors at CCDHB in 2011 and 2012. Data analysis was inductive and iterative.

RESULTS

Doctors primarily rely on informal avenues of peer consultation for support when making difficult ethical decisions. Many participants saw a potential role for formal ethics support, but expressed concern about how ethics support services would fit into their clinical practice. Primary concerns included the accessibility of support services and moral responsibility for ethical decision making in clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors are more willing to engage in ethics support services where they are able to participate in, or at least observe, the decision-making process.

The Missions of National Commissions: Mapping the Forms and Functions of Bioethics Advisory Bodies

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of national ethics commissions (NECs) have received considerable attention throughout the 40-year history of these groups in the United States and worldwide. However, the procedures or types of argument by which these bodies arrive at their decisions have received far less scrutiny. This paper explores how the diversity of ethical principles, concepts, or theories is featured in publications or decisions of these bodies, with particular emphasis on the need for NECs to be inclusive of pluralist positions that typically exist in contemporary democracies. The discussion is centered on the extent to which NECs may focus on providing focal frameworks, primarily framing the ethical issues at stake, or normative frameworks, additionally providing transparent justifications for any conclusions and recommendations that are made. The structure allows for assessments of the relative merits and drawbacks of different approaches in both theory and practice.

[Ethics committees in the experience of the IMSS: a Latin American instance]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this article is to identify the current state of hospital bioethics committees and local research ethics committees of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS).

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed that included all hospitals of the IMSS (N = 262). Two self-administered questionnaires were e-mailed between october and november 2014 to the hospital directors: one for hospital bioethics committees and another for local research ethics committees. Both questionnaires had five sections: committee location, date of committee set up, activity situation, composition, functions, and experience.

RESULTS

The response rate was 85 %. It was reported 150 active hospital bioethics committees and 67 active local research ethics committees. In both groups physicians and executive directors dominated committees' membership, and lay people were reported only in seven hospital bioethics committees. The primary function of hospital bioethics committees was case consultation, and their primary goal "to improve the quality of medical care". Local Research Ethics Committees reported as primary function "to evaluate health research protocols and rule of them", and as their primary goal "to protect the rights and wellbeing of the research subjects".

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups of committees ought to be assessed regularly through audit cycles in order to identify the educative actions that enhance their efficiency.

[External Ethics Committees of biobanks: distinction of related entities and management of a disperse legislation]

The Laws which legislate the Ethical Committees in the Management of Biobank also rule other kind of Committees, sometimes with the same functions, and this situation (denomination, nature and functions) need to be understood. On the other hand, those Committees are legislated in different Laws, and this is another situation that must be put in order.

Development of guidelines for the conduct of HIV research monitoring by ethics committees in Nigeria

Nigerian research ethics committees are charged with the responsibility to monitor ongoing research to ensure compliance with ethical standards. Recent evidence from qualitative studies on research conduct however, indicate that many research studies fail to implement their protocols as written, and that this is not reported due to a failure of comprehensive monitoring. As Nigeria is in many respects a highly suitable country in which to conduct HIV biomedical prevention research, we argue there is a need to reprioritise the strengthening of the monitoring capacity of ethics committees so that such vital and ethically complex research can be conducted with confidence. We identify the need for (i) improved resourcing and training of ethics committee members, and (ii) comprehensive planning of research monitoring as part of the ethics committee protocol review process. We also highlight the significance of community collaboration and the establishment of a central pool of national monitors, as essential components for reinvigorating monitoring capacity.

Written institutional ethics policies on euthanasia: an empirical-based organizational-ethical framework

As euthanasia has become a widely debated issue in many Western countries, hospitals and nursing homes especially are increasingly being confronted with this ethically sensitive societal issue. The focus of this paper is how healthcare institutions can deal with euthanasia requests on an organizational level by means of a written institutional ethics policy. The general aim is to make a critical analysis whether these policies can be considered as organizational-ethical instruments that support healthcare institutions to take their institutional responsibility for dealing with euthanasia requests. By means of an interpretative analysis, we conducted a process of reinterpretation of results of former Belgian empirical studies on written institutional ethics policies on euthanasia in dialogue with the existing international literature. The study findings revealed that legal regulations, ethical and care-oriented aspects strongly affected the development, the content, and the impact of written institutional ethics policies on euthanasia. Hence, these three cornerstones-law, care and ethics-constituted the basis for the empirical-based organizational-ethical framework for written institutional ethics policies on euthanasia that is presented in this paper. However, having a euthanasia policy does not automatically lead to more legal transparency, or to a more professional and ethical care practice. The study findings suggest that the development and implementation of an ethics policy on euthanasia as an organizational-ethical instrument should be considered as a dynamic process. Administrators and ethics committees must take responsibility to actively create an ethical climate supporting care providers who have to deal with ethical dilemmas in their practice.

Report of the ethics committee, 2012

In accordance with the bylaws of the American Psychological Association (APA), the Ethics Committee reports regularly to the membership regarding the number and types of ethics matters investigated and the major programs undertaken. In 2012, ethics adjudication, ethics education and consultation, and special projects were activities of the Ethics Committee. Issues, activities, and programs regarding diversity and minority group outreach are also discussed.

Education and the improvement of clinical ethics services

The proliferation of clinical ethics in health care institutions around the world has raised the question about the qualifications of those who serve on ethics committees and ethics consultation services. This paper discusses some of weaknesses associated with the most common educational responses to this concern and proposes a complementary approach. Since the majority of those involved in clinical ethics are practicing health professionals, the question of qualification is especially challenging as the role of ethics committees and, increasingly, ethics consultation services are becoming increasingly important to the functioning of health care institutions. Since the challenging nature of health care finances often leads institutions to rely on voluntary participation of committed health professional with only token administrative or clerical support to provide the needed ethics services, significant challenges are created for attaining competence and functional effectiveness. The article suggests that a complementary approach should be adopted for sustaining and building capacity in clinical ethics. Ethics committees and consultation services should systematically adopt quality improvement techniques to effect designed changes in clinical ethics performance and to build ethical capacity within targeted clinical units and services. Demonstrating improvements in functioning can go a long way to build confidence and capacity for clinical ethics and can help in justifying the need for support. To do so, however, requires that ethics committees and consultation services first shift attention to those areas that demonstrate weak or questionable ethical performance, including the established practices of the ethics committee and consultation service, and second seek collaboration with the involved health care providers to pursue demonstrable change. Such an approach has a much better chance of improving the capacity for clinical ethics in health care institutions than relying on educational approaches alone.

Towards clinical bioethics (or a return to clinical ethics?)

Medical ethics has traditionally been oriented towards the clinical setting. Since the middle of the last century, however, various circumstances (associated mainly, though not exclusively, with rapid advances in technology and knowledge) have considerably broadened both the field of enquiry and the scope of this discipline. This is due partly to the overlap between medical ethics and bioethics, which in recent decades has acquired its own identity and concerns a multitude of ethical aspects in the biomedical field. Clinical ethics taps into the vast wealth of deontology, so that it has no need for additional criteria or principles, or for the definition of new values: rather, it recognizes the need to apply existing criteria, principles and values to contingent circumstances and contexts. A special role is reserved for ethics committees and, above all, for clinical ethics consultants, although in some countries the former are concerned mainly with authorisations for clinical trials. Clinical ethics consultants, however, may have a more incisive influence in clinical decisions: the special requisites and skills they need have been defined and discussed in various documents which are mentioned briefly in the present article. The presence of these consultants does not exonerate clinical physicians from their responsibilities or from liability for their decisions, in the formation of which they must refer constantly to codes of professional ethics.

Paper use in research ethics applications and study conduct

Application for Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval and the conduct of medical research is paper intensive. This retrospective study examined all applications to a single REC in the south of England over one year. It estimated the mass of paper used, comparing the proportional paper consumption of different trial types and during different stages of the research process, quantifying the consumption in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2009, 68 trials were submitted to the REC. Total paper consumption for the REC process and study conduct was 176,150 sheets of A4 paper (879 kg), equivalent to an estimated 11.5 million sheets (88 tonnes, 2100 trees) a year for the U.K.; the REC process accounted for 26.4%. REC applications and the conduct of approved trials generate considerable environmental impact through paper consumption contributing to the NHS's carbon footprint. Paper use might be reduced through the implementation of digital technologies and revised research methods, namely changing attitudes in both researchers and ethics committees.

Ethics Committee or Community? Examining the identity of Czech Ethics Committees in the period of transition

Reflecting on a three year long exploratory research of ethics committees in the Czech Republic authors discuss the current role and identity of research ethics committees. The research of Czech ethics committees focused on both self-presentation and self-understanding of ECs members, and how other stakeholders (representatives of the pharmaceutical industry) view them. The exploratory research was based on formal and informal communication with the members of the ethics committees. Members of the research team took part at six regular voluntary meetings of the ethics committees' members, organised by the Forum of Czech Ethics Committees, and at three summer schools of medical ethics. There were realised twenty-five semi-structured interviews as well as six focus group sessions and a participant observation of several regular meetings of three ethics committees. On the grounds of experience from the interviews a simple questionnaire survey was realised among the members of the ethics committees. The ethics committees comprise a community of members working voluntarily, without claims to remuneration or prestige; the unifying goal is protection of subjects of research. The principal working methods are dialogue and agreement. The members of the ethics committees thus, among other things, create an informal community, which can be to a certain extent seen as a Kantian ethical community in a weak sense. The phenomenon of ethics committees can also be described by terms of an epistemic community and a community of practice. These concepts, which are borrowed from other authors and areas, are used as a way how to think of ECs role and identity a bit differently and are meant as a contribution to the current international debate on the topic.

Healthcare ethics: the experience after the Haitian earthquake

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 Richter earthquake devastated Haiti and its public health infrastructure leading to a worldwide humanitarian effort. The United States sent forces to Haiti's assistance including the USNS Comfort, a tertiary care medical center on board a ship. Besides setting a transparent triage and medical regulating system, the leadership on the Comfort instituted a multidisciplinary Healthcare Ethics Committee to assist in delivering the highest level efficient care to the largest number of victims. Allocation of resources was based on time-honored ethics principles, the concept of mass casualty triage in the setting of resource constraints, and constructs developed by the host nation's Ministry of Health. In offering aid in austere circumstances, healthcare practitioners must not only adhere to the basic healthcare ethics principles but also practice respect for communities, cultures, and traditions, as well as demonstrate respect for the sovereignty of the host nation. The principles outlined herein should serve as guidance for future disaster relief missions. This work is in accordance with BUMEDINST 6010.25, Establishment of Healthcare Ethics Committees.

UNESCO's activities in ethics

UNESCO is an intergovernmental organization with 193 Member States. It is concerned with a broad range of issues regarding education, science and culture. It is the only UN organisation with a mandate in science. Since 1993 it is addressing ethics of science and technology, with special emphasis on bioethics. One major objective of the ethics programme is the development of international normative standards. This is particularly important since many Member States only have a limited infrastructure in bioethics, lacking expertise, educational programs, bioethics committees and legal frameworks. UNESCO has recently adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The focus of current activities is now on implementation of this Declaration. Three activities are discussed that aim at improving and reinforcing the ethics infrastructure in relation to science and technology: the Global Ethics Observatory, the Ethics Education Programme and the Assisting Bioethics Committees project.

Capacity mapping of national ethics committees in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND

Ethics issues in the areas of science, technology and medicine have emerged during the last few decades. Many countries have responded by establishing ethics committees at the national level. Identification of National Ethics Committees (NECs) in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) region and the extent of their functions and capacity would be helpful in developing capacity building programs that address the needs of these committees. Accordingly, we conducted a survey to determine the characteristics of existing NECs in the EM region.

METHODS

We developed a questionnaire to collect information on different aspects of NECs. The questionnaire was sent to the WHO country office in each of the 22 Member States in the EM region. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We obtained responses from 77% (17/22) of the EM countries; 88% (15/17) of the countries stated they had NECs. Of these NECs, 40% (6/15) were involved in the ethics of science and technology, 73% (11/15) in medical ethics, and 93% (14/15) in medical research ethics; 10 NECs stated they reviewed research protocols. Of the respondent NECs, 25% (4/15) met at least on a monthly basis. Regarding training, 21% of the members from all of the NECs had received formal training in ethics; 53% (8/15) of the NECs had none of their members with formal training in ethics. Regarding support, 33% (5/15) received financial support and 60% (9/15) had administrative support.

CONCLUSION

While many countries in the EM region report the existence of NECs, many meet infrequently, many have members without formal training in ethics, and many lack important financial and administrative resources. Further efforts should be directed towards capacity building programs that include ethics training and provision of important infrastructure resources for these committees.

Review of policies for injuries to research participants in India

BACKGROUND

As there is little Indian data about severity, frequency and types of research related injuries, costs involved and policies regarding compensation, this study was conducted to review the present Indian scenario.

METHODS

The study was carried out in three parts; a questionnaire-based survey, in-depth interviews, and a review of informed consent and insurance documents of projects submitted to three ethics committees.

RESULTS

47% of investigators were either unaware of, or had not understood, the legal requirements and depended on sponsors to manage these issues, whereas 74% of ethics committee members were aware of the requirements. Although 40% of investigators, 30% of ethics committee members and all sponsors had policies to manage compensation issues, these were mainly to provide immediate free medical care or reimbursement of expenses incurred for the acute management of an adverse event. Compensation for loss of time/wages, death, physical disability or long term incapacitation was not included. A review of informed consent and insurance documents showed that compensation issues were inadequately discussed, with only insurance certificates submitted to ethics committees.

CONCLUSION

In India, there are no uniform policies and investigators are largely unaware of their responsibilities. Therefore, there is an urgent need to draft national guidelines regarding compensation for research injuries of research participants and highlight the responsibilities of each stakeholder. Potential research injuries should be categorised based on risk assessment, severity and seriousness of the injury. Further, it would be necessary to have arbitration committees to determine the extent of compensation. Training and awareness workshops for those involved in clinical research, including research participants, is also needed.

The Israeli terminally ill patient law of 2005

Israel, like many other countries, is struggling with numerous bioethical dilemmas due to its cultural and religious diversity. Until recently there was no legal guidance for how to deal with end-of-life issues. However, in 2005 a law was passed regulating the treatment of dying patients. Its most controversial aspect is the distinction it makes between withholding therapy (which is allowed) and withdrawing continuous therapy (which is not allowed). In this formulation, the law attempted to strike a balance between respecting the autonomy of the patient and respecting the sanctity of life. The law respects autonomy by establishing the right of the patient to refuse treatment; it respects the sanctity of life by prohibiting active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. However, this compromise was not acceptable to all members of the public advisory body that framed the law. Some argued that there was no moral basis for the distinction between withholding and withdrawing treatment.