Abstract

Ethics and human rights committees are being used in ever increasing numbers to address ethical issues in public institutions. These multi-disciplinary committees provide a forum for review and decision making. Such structures are now found in many hospitals and a growing range of public organizations. Though typically voluntary, such committees are required by law in the case of Colorado's programs for people with developmental disabilities. In this context, they are known as human rights committees . ;Despite the law, most ethical decisions in this field continue to be made independently by professionals, advocates, families and the general public. As a result, a debate has arisen as to whether the outcome of the decision process differs between these two groups, HRC's and informed individuals. ;This study examined differences concerning ethical decisions made by HRC's, professionals, client rights advocates, family members and the general public. Specifically, the decisions of these groups were compared to see if significant differences existed in ethical decision making outcomes. Hypothetical cases describing actual ethical dilemmas were presented to each group and individual. The data generated was tested with non-parametric techniques and chi-square. ;The findings of this study indicate there are significant differences between the ethical decisions made by HRC's, family members and the general public. Professional's decisions also differed from the general public's, indicating support for the separatist thesis. The decisions of advocates were similar to those of HRC's