Like the National Commission and the President's Commission, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was formed to carry out specific ethical tasks. Yet the committee also had an “openness” mission, a charge to investigate allegations that the U.S. government secretly exposed Americans to environmental releases of radiation. Eighteen months later—and after sixteen public meetings, more than 200 interviews, and the review of about 400,000 documents—the committee delivered a 925‐page report to the president.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's drug advisory committees provide expert assessments of the safety and efficacy of new therapies considered for approval. A committee hears from a variety of speakers, from six groups, including voting members of the committee, FDA staff members, employees of the pharmaceutical company seeking approval of a therapy, patient and consumer representatives, expert speakers invited by the company, and public participants. The committees convene at the request of the FDA when the risks (...) and harms of novel products are not immediately clear, and their final decisions carry significant weight, as most therapies that receive advisory committee approval are subsequently approved by the FDA. In recent years, across a series of diverse publications, the financial conflicts of interest of each category of participants in the meetings have been investigated. Here, we summarize these findings and their ethical implications, focusing on the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, and we suggest ways to move toward more transparent and impartial advisory committee meetings. (shrink)

: In light of information uncovered about human radiation experiments conducted during the Cold War, an important charge for the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was to assess the current state of protections for human research subjects. This assessment was designed to enhance the Committee's ability to make informed recommendations for the improvement of future policies and practices for the protection of research subjects. The Committee's examination of current protections revealed great improvement over those from the past, yet (...) some problems remain. Although the data collected by the Committee highlight specific areas in need of attention, the Committee's work should be viewed in part as the beginning of a series of ongoing assessments of the adequacy and effectiveness of the protections afforded to human subjects. (shrink)

This paper examines the drive for consensus from the perspective of the good government framework for federal advisory commissions in the United States. Specifically, the paper examines the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) – the statute, its regulations, and case law. It shows that the FACA was intended to be an antidote to abuses in consensus‐making processes, including the failure to fully include competing views on commissions. The index of suspicion in the FACA scheme rises when a group (...) work product – including a consensus report – is to be the basis of recommendations to federal officials. Once FACA's requirements regarding committee composition are satisfied, the index of suspicion drops and FACA is indifferent to consensus‐making; but the conditions for informed, meaningful participation apply to members who dissent from, as well as those who participate in, consensus. In negotiated rulemaking, the push for consensus and closure creates unacceptable tension with the good government goals of openness and accountability. Proponents of consensus‐only bioethics commissions can learn from FACA‐related legislative, agency, and judicial insights that consensus‐seeking is not always desired by government officials; is rarely cost free; and that diversity and dissent enhance openness, accountability, and fairness. The burden of proof is therefore on proponents of a consensus‐only standard for bioethics commissions to demonstrate that a drive for consensus furthers sound decision‐making by government officials more than it sets back openness and accountability to a diverse public. (shrink)

This paper examines the drive for consensus from the perspective of the good government framework for federal advisory commissions in the United States. Specifically, the paper examines the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) – the statute, its regulations, and case law. It shows that the FACA was intended to be an antidote to abuses in consensus‐making processes, including the failure to fully include competing views on commissions. The index of suspicion in the FACA scheme rises when a group (...) work product – including a consensus report – is to be the basis of recommendations to federal officials. Once FACA's requirements regarding committee composition are satisfied, the index of suspicion drops and FACA is indifferent to consensus‐making; but the conditions for informed, meaningful participation apply to members who dissent from, as well as those who participate in, consensus. In negotiated rulemaking, the push for consensus and closure creates unacceptable tension with the good government goals of openness and accountability. Proponents of consensus‐only bioethics commissions can learn from FACA‐related legislative, agency, and judicial insights that consensus‐seeking is not always desired by government officials; is rarely cost free; and that diversity and dissent enhance openness, accountability, and fairness. The burden of proof is therefore on proponents of a consensus‐only standard for bioethics commissions to demonstrate that a drive for consensus furthers sound decision‐making by government officials more than it sets back openness and accountability to a diverse public. (shrink)

This article explores the question of how scientific uncertainty can be managed in medical decision making using the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as a case study. It concludes that where a high degree of technical consensus exists about the evidence and data, decision makers act according to a clear decision rule. If a high degree of technical consensus does not exist and uncertainty abounds, the decision will be based on a variety of criteria, including readily available resources, decision-process (...) constraints, and the available knowledge base, among other things. Decision makers employ a variety of heuristic devices and techniques, thereby employing a pragmatic approach to uncertainty in medical decision making. The article concludes with recommendations for managing scientific uncertainty in medical decision making. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Chair’s Perspective on the Work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation ExperimentsRuth Faden (bio)On January 15, 1994, President Clinton created the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments in response to his concern about the increasing number of reports describing alleged unethical conduct of the U.S. Government, and institutions funded by the government, in the use of, or exposure to, ionizing radiation in human beings at the (...) height of the Cold War. He directed the Committee: (1) to uncover the history of human radiation experiments and intentional environmental releases of radiation; (2) to identify the ethical and scientific standards for evaluating these events; and (3) to make recommendations to ensure that whatever wrongdoing may have occurred in the past will not be repeated.The Committee was composed of 14 members: a citizen representative and 13 experts in bioethics, radiation oncology and biology, epidemiology and statistics, public health, history of science and medicine, nuclear medicine, and law. We reported to a cabinet-level group (the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group) convened by the president, which includes the secretaries of defense, energy, health and human services, and veterans affairs; the attorney general; the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and the director of the Office of Management and Budget.On April 21, 1994, at the end of the first day of our first meeting, President Clinton invited us to the White House to personally communicate his commitment to the process we were about to undertake. He urged us to be fair, thorough, and unafraid to shine the light of truth on this hidden and poorly understood aspect of our nation’s past. Our most important task, he said, was to tell the full story to the American public. [End Page 215] At the same time, we were to examine the present, to determine how the conduct of human research today compares with that of the past, and to assess whether, in light of this inquiry, changes need to be made in the policies of the federal government. Eighteen months later, the Committee’s attempt to tell the story of the past and to report on our inquiry into the present was delivered to the president in a 900-page Final Report (ACHRE 1995) and several supplemental volumes.The Committee’s charge was enormous. We were asked to conduct a massive investigation into events that occurred as much as 50 years ago and that involved the highest reaches of the defense establishment and the medical community. This investigation necessitated an examination of the conduct and policies of six federal agencies and countless agents in the private sector, as well as the location and interpretation of hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which were buried in obscure locations or were still classified.In addition, the Committee was instructed to establish standards for judging, in moral terms, the events that it uncovered. This charge necessitated the confrontation of contentious debates in moral thought and theory about history, relativism, and the significance of context in moral judgment. But our purpose was not to engage in these debates in the abstract. Although the Committee was not expressly charged with considering issues relating to remedies, including financial compensation, we felt obliged to address the type of remedies that we believed the government, as an ethical matter, should provide to subjects of experiments where the circumstances warranted such a response. Thus our deliberations about relativism and moral judgment were tied to concrete recommendations for public policy and were conducted in a public context that included participants from numerous adversarial legal proceedings.In tandem with our reconstruction of the past, we undertook three projects to examine the current state of human radiation experiments. First, we studied how each federal agency that currently conducts or funds research involving human subjects regulates and oversees its research activity. Second, from among the very large number of federally-supported research projects involving human subjects, we randomly selected 125 projects for closer scrutiny. We reviewed all available relevant documentation for each project in order to assess how well it appeared to protect the rights and interests of the participating subjects. Third... (shrink)

At a White House ceremony in October 1995, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments presented its Final Report to President Bill Clinton. The 925-page report and the over 2,000 pages of supplemental volumes summarized eighteen months of investigative research, debate, and deliberation on historical and contemporary issues in human subjects research. The Advisory Committee's efforts were aided by unprecedented support from the highest levels of the executive branch, including the heads of eight cabinet-level agencies and their departments' (...) resources. The presidentially appointed committee and its staff delved into long-forgotten Cold Warera government archives, listened to hours of public testimony, interviewed key players in the development of medical therapies and nuclear weapons, and studied ethical issues arising in today's research.In this article we focus on a critical, but narrowly defined, part of the Advisory Committee's Final Report: remedying harms or wrongs to subjects of human radiation experiments conducted or sponsored by the U.S. government between 1944 and 1974. (shrink)

At a White House ceremony in October 1995, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments presented its Final Report to President Bill Clinton. The 925-page report and the over 2,000 pages of supplemental volumes summarized eighteen months of investigative research, debate, and deliberation on historical and contemporary issues in human subjects research. The Advisory Committee's efforts were aided by unprecedented support from the highest levels of the executive branch, including the heads of eight cabinet-level agencies and their departments' (...) resources. The presidentially appointed committee and its staff delved into long-forgotten Cold Warera government archives, listened to hours of public testimony, interviewed key players in the development of medical therapies and nuclear weapons, and studied ethical issues arising in today's research.In this article we focus on a critical, but narrowly defined, part of the Advisory Committee's Final Report: remedying harms or wrongs to subjects of human radiation experiments conducted or sponsored by the U.S. government between 1944 and 1974. (shrink)

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki Şer’i yönetişim aktörlerinden olan banka içi danışma komitelerinin Şer’i yönetişimdeki yeri ve önemini keşfetmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu minvalde nitel araştırma desenlerinden olan durum çalışması tercih edilmiş ve 5 danışma komitesi üyesi ve 2 danışma komitesi başkanıyla yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Mülakatlar neticesinde toplam 625 dakikalık ses kayıtları elde edilerek çözümlenmiş ve 85 sayfalık metin elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen metinler ve görüşme notları ATLAS.ti programı aracılığıyla analiz edilerek BİDK, Şer’i yönetişim ve Merkezi Danışma Kurulu olmak üzere 3 ana tema (...) ve bunlara bağlı 26 alt temaya ulaşılmıştır. İlgili temalar BİDK’nin Türkiye’deki Şer’i yönetişimdeki yeri ve önemini keşfetmek açısından zengin bir içerik sunmaktadır. Türkiye’deki Şer’i yönetişimi ele alan çalışmaların literatürde sınırlı olması ve bu çalışmanın hem saha çalışmasına hem de Türkiye’deki Şer’i yönetişimde yer alan, katılım bankacılığının tarihine eş bir ömre sahip BİDK’ları konu etmesi literatürde özgün bir yere sahip olacağına işaret etmektedir. Islamic finance has developed the Shariah governance mechanism to ensure compliance and control of IFIs with the principles of Islamic law. However, the levels of Shariah governance are different from each other due to the different legal affiliations of each country, the level of development of Islamic finance, and regime differences. International Islamic financial institutions such as Islamic Financial Services Board and The Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions have published standards to define the general lines of Shariah governance and have brought Shariah governance practices to a certain point, at least in principle. After the Shariah governance standards of IFSB and AAOIFI, studies on Shariah governance have increased rapidly. By 2010, while there were only 18 publications on Shariah governance in the two most well-known indexes, this number increased to 42 in 2015 and 159 in 2020. This academic interest shows that Shariah governance issues are followed closely. In this context, there have been some remarkable developments at the regulatory and supervisory level in terms of Shariah governance in Turkey, and the TKBB Advisory Board was established in 2018, bringing one step closer to international Shariah governance practices. (shrink)

The Report of the Ad Hoc Adivisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees has resulted in a strange mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre.The Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees is a curious document.1 The remit of the review was focused on the workings and effectiveness of NHS research ethics committees and the multicentre committees ). The Group was primarily set (...) up in response to a series of complaints from medical researchers about the new research governance regime in the UK as a result of the Clinical Trials Directive2 and the Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees.3 The opportunity was also taken to consider the role of research ethics committees in a wider context, and take account of recent developments in relation to the ethics review of social care research,4 student projects,5 as well as recent legislation such as the Human Tissue Act,6 and the Mental Capacity Act.7 However, the resulting report is a strange mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre.A good example of the report’s timidity is its reluctance to propose fundamental change to the process of review or seriously limit the type of research that requires REC review. To its credit AHAG does suggest that some research ‘especially surveys and many studies on NHS staff, could normally be conducted safely without a requirement for REC review’ .1 This is, of course, to be welcomed. However, the report ultimately seems dismissive of the general complaint from researchers that the current process is inappropriately uniform. For example, in section 3.2, it is argued that the ‘common perception that the NHS REC system is dominated …. (shrink)

BackgroundThe use of a Community Advisory Board is one method of ensuring community engagement in community based research. To identify the process used to constitute CABs in Zambia, this paper draws on the perspectives of both research team members and CAB members from research groups who used CABs in Lusaka. Enabling and restricting factors impacting on the functioning of the CAB were identified.MethodsAll studies approved by the University of Zambia Bioethics Research Committee from 2008 – 2012 were reviewed to (...) identify those studies that were likely to include a CAB. Eight teams with studies that included a CAB were identified. For each of these studies, consent was obtained to conduct an informal interview with a research team member and to obtain contact details for one CAB member. In total 14 interviews were conducted with 8 research team members and 6 CAB members from 12–30 August 2013.ResultsIdentification of potential CAB members from the community and their participation in developing the terms of reference for CABs was perceived to have contributed to the success of the CAB. Due to the trust that the community had in members of their community the CABs were then in a stronger position to influence community participation in the research. Training of CAB members was identified as a factor that enhanced the functioning of a CAB. Lack of commitment and low literacy levels of CAB members posed a threat to the role of the CAB. Although compensation in the form of a stipend was not provided, CAB members were provided with transport reimbursements for attending meetings.ConclusionsSelection of CAB members from within the community contributed to community confidence in the CAB, enhancing its ability to act as an effective link between study team and community. This contributed positively to the conduct of the study and enhanced community awareness and acceptance of the research. However, establishment of study specific CABs has the potential to compromise CAB independence due to support provided by the research team in the form of transport reimbursements and other forms of support. Consideration should be given to establishing community wide Community Advisory Boards that could function across a range of studies to increase independent objective decision-making. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Ethics Committees in HospitalsPat Milmoe McCarrick (bio)(Literature about hospital ethics committees has grown enormously since Scope Note 3 first appeared. This update provides new information about resources and documents now available while continuing to include important earlier sources.)Hospital ethics committees increasingly have taken hold in the United States since 1983, when the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral (...) Research encouraged their creation in its report, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment (III, 1983, p. 5).The President's Commission report (pp. 160-64) suggested the following roles for ethics committees: 1) review of treatment decisions made on behalf of incompetent, terminally ill patients; 2) review of medical decisions having ethical implications with the option, in cases of disagreement, to refer cases to a court with proper jurisdiction; 3) provision of social, psychological, spiritual, or other counseling for patients, family members, physicians, or other hospital staff; 4) establishing guidelines regarding treatment or other medical decisions; and 5) sponsoring or conducting educational programs to inform all concerned, including the public, about ethical problems in medicine.No exact count of these committees is available. According to estimates cited by Donald F. Phillips, managing editor of Hospital Ethics, about two-thirds to three-fourths of hospitals with more than 200 beds have ethics committees, as do about one-third of hospitals under 200 beds. He thinks that about half of the 6,000 hospitals in the United States now have working ethics committees.Several journal articles and a court decision in the late 1970s influenced their formation. A 1975 journal article by pediatrician Karen Teel (VII A) urged the use of hospital ethics committees to provide for dialogue in individual care situations as an appropriate sharing of responsibility. Another early article suggested that beyond parents and treating physicians, a "disinterested," mixed lay and medical committee could consider cases about defective newborns to improve the ethical decisionmaking process (VII A, Robertson and Fost, 1976). Three 1977 discussions in the Hastings Center Report highlighted this new concept (VII A, Levine; Shannon; Veatch).Produced at the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. It is supported by funds provided under grant number LM04492 from the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Literature available through June 1992 is represented in this Scope Note. [End Page 285]The court decision was the March 31, 1976 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Karen Quinlan case. The parents of a young woman in a persistent vegetative state had requested that she be taken off a respirator. The court designated a "prognosis" role for the hospital ethics committee and stipulated that the committee must concur that the patient will never return to a "cognitive, sapient state" before the life-support system can be withdrawn (In the Matter of Karen Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert. denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922 (1976)). Shortly after the Quinlan decision, Massachusetts General Hospital's Clinical Care Committee created an ad hoc subcommittee (a psychiatrist, a legal counsel, an ICU nurse, an oncologist/internist, a surgeon, and a lay person who had recovered from serious cancer disease) which looked at 15 cases. Based on the subcommittee's success, establishment of a permanent committee to review treatment of the terminally ill was recommended by the critical care committee (VII A, Clinical Care Committee 1976).In its 1984 Baby Doe rules, the federal government recommended establishment of infant care review committees, which promoted the growth of hospital ethics committees (VII C, Povar 1991). In July 1987 Maryland became the first state to require by law that hospitals establish patient care advisory committees to offer advice about choices available in the care of life-threatening illnesses; this requirement was extended to nursing homes in 1990 [codified as amended at Md. Health-Gen. Code Ann. Sections 19-370 to -374 (1990)] (VII C, Hollinger 1991).Recently the role for these committees has been noted in the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, 1992 Supplement (p. 10, Patient Rights, Section RI. 1.1.6.1) of the Joint Commission... (shrink)

This paper is an examination of how research ethics committees have evolved from being advisory committees to more formal regulatory authorities. It is argued that the role of ethics committees should be broader than simple ethical review. Inconsistency in outcome should not be taken to signal failure. Procedural fairness is of the utmost importance. Nor should ethics committees be seen to diminish the ethical responsibilities of researchers themselves.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:An Egg Takes Flight: The Once and Future Life of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission*Alexander Morgan Capron (bio)Attempting to describe the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) is comparable to the surreal feat performed by the artist in a famous painting by René Magritte. The artist (Magritte himself) sits with his back to the viewer, a palette in his left hand. The brush in his right hand is (...) raised to a canvas, blank except for a bird in flight that he is in the process of painting. The artist is looking to his left at a tabletop, bare except for a single, plain egg.Having held its second formal meeting in mid-January, NBAC is certainly still embryonic, its future mysterious within its shell. Yet answers to four major questions that will determine not just what kind of bird the Commission turns out to be but the heights to which it will fly should be evident by April or May 1997. First, will the White House take the sort of interest in NBAC that is needed if it is to succeed? Second, will the Commission’s term be extended beyond October 1997—and will the decision come early enough to allow it to start soon on projects that will take more than a single year to complete? Third, will the Commission take a broad view of the issues it addresses, reexamining widely accepted assumptions and going back to basic premises, or will it respond primarily in bureaucratic terms, guided by its charter’s focus on improving the policies and practices of federal departments and agencies? Fourth, will the Commission move beyond its initially mandated topics—the rights and welfare of human research subjects and the management and use of genetic information—and become what its name promises, the nation’s advisory body on the full range of bioethical issues that arise in the organization and management of health services and research?The Origins of the Egg: NBAC’s PredecessorsThe creation of a national bioethics commission has been demanded for years, at the least since its most recent predecessor, the Biomedical Ethics [End Page 63] Advisory Committee (BEAC) finally expired in 1990. BEAC’s statutory authority lapsed after the hapless committee had spent several years itself like an in vitro embryo in a vat of liquid nitrogen. BEAC’s opponents in Congress froze its appropriation and forbad it to meet until the Biomedical Ethics Board of six senators and six representatives to which it was supposed to report resolved the chaos resulting from the Board members’ ideological differences and personal distrust; this never occurred, and the Board proved unable even to choose its chairman. 1 BEAC, which met only twice, had laid preliminary plans to study the issues raised by the new genetics, but the politics of abortion—which had greatly complicated and slowed the Board’s naming of the BEAC members—was strong enough to interfere even with the topic of genetics, on which the difference among committee members actually gave no sign of dividing on pro-life/pro-choice grounds.The disappearance of BEAC left the nation without a mechanism for “public bioethics,” and several efforts were undertaken in the early 1990s to generate a new commission that could carry on in the tradition of the two previous, successful bioethics commissions. (The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research operated under a Congressional mandate in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1974 to 1978, and the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which had been authorized by Congress in 1978, actually operated as an independent body with government-wide purview from January 1980 to March 1983.) The Institute of Medicine established a committee to assess the mechanisms available not only to the federal government but also to states, professional bodies, and the public for deliberating about and resolving ethical issues stemming from developments in biomedicine (Bulger, Bobby, and Fineberg 1995). In September 1992, Senators Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), and Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) requested that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) evaluate the... (shrink)

Bioethical and bio‐political questions are increasingly tackled by committees, councils, and other advisory boards that work on different and often interrelated levels. Research ethics committees work on an institutional or clinical level; local advisory boards deal with biomedical topics on the level of particular political regions; national and international political advisory boards try to answer questions about morally problematic political decisions in medical research and practice. In accordance with the increasing number and importance of (...) class='Hi'>committees, the quality of their work and their functional status are being subjected to more and more scrutiny. Besides overall criticism regarding the quality of their work, particular committees giving political advice are often suspected of being incompatible with democratic values, such as respect for affected parties, representation of diverse values and transparency in the decision‐making processes. Based on the example of the German National Ethics Council, whose inauguration caused a still ongoing debate on the aims and scopes of committees in general, this paper discusses: (1) the requirements of modern democratic societies in dealing with complex scientific‐technical problems; (2) the composition and organisation of committees working as political advisory boards; and (3) the appointment procedures and roles of laymen and experts, and here in particular of ethicists, who may legitimately be taken on by a committee. I will argue that bioethics committees do not necessarily endanger democratic values, but can considerably improve their realisation in democratic decision‐making procedures – if, and only if, they do not act as substitutes for parliamentarian processes, but help prepare parliamentarian processes to be organised as rationally as possible. (shrink)

The same research proposal was submitted to 24 district health authority (DHA) research ethics committees in different parts of the country. The objective was to obtain permission for a multi-centre research project. The study of neonatal care in different types of unit (regional, subregional and district), required that four health authorities were approached in each of six widely separated health regions in England. Data were collected and compared concerning aspects of processing, including application forms, information required, timing and decision-making. (...) The key finding was that ethics committees received and processed the applications variably, reflecting individual factors and local problems. To improve consensus and facilitate multicentre studies, standard forms and instructions are suggested and the establishment of a national committee or advisory group advocated. (shrink)

Research ethics committees are charged with providing an opinion on whether research proposals are ethical. These committees are overseen by a central office that acts for the Department of Health and hence the State. An advisory group has recently reported back to the Department of Health, recommending that it should deal with inconsistency in the decisions made by different RECs. This article questions the desirability and feasibility of questing for consistent ethical decisions.

Ethics advisory groups, in various forms, have existed for at least 50 years in the United States and other countries. In science and biomedicine, four principal types of committees can be distinguished: policy-making and/or advisory committees, health professional association committees, health care ethics committees, and research ethics committees. Overall, these bodies have been of use to governments, policy makers, health care professionals, and the public in considering ‘what is ethical’ and ‘what is unethical’ (...) in areas such as research involving humans or animals or environmental questions such as whether to use genetically modified crops. This paper concentrates on a particular and... (shrink)

This issue’s “Legal Briefing” column covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as “death panels.” But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified (...) their roles concerning both end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories: 1. Existence and availability2. Membership and composition3. Operating procedures4. Advisory roles5. Decision-making and gate-keeping roles6. Confidentiality7. Immunity8. Litigation and court cases. (shrink)

A questionnaire on the attitudes towards the functions of research ethical committees was sent to members of selected research ethical committees in Wessex and some controls. Almost all respondents felt there was a need for ethical review of research projects; 42 per cent thought there was a need for some training before joining a committee; 67 per cent thought the system could be improved and 47 per cent thought that monitoring or follow-up procedures should be adopted. Ethical (...) class='Hi'>committees were thought to be purely advisory, as opposed to mandatory, by 33 per cent, and 63 per cent thought they should restrict their review to ethical problems as opposed to scientific or design problems. Views about the function of non-medical members ranged from 'none at all' to 'very important'. Of the 10 controls who were asked whether they would become a member of an ethical committee if asked, seven said that on balance they would and the reasons stated varied from the view that it was a 'very important committee' to the feeling that it was 'a necessary but irksome job'. (shrink)

Ethics committees are the most important practical instrument of clinical ethics in Belgium and fulfil three tasks: the ethical review of experimental protocols, advising on the ethical aspects of healthcare practice, and ethics consultation. In this article the authors examine the current situation of ethics committees in Belgium from the perspective of clinical ethics. Firstly, the most important steps which thus far have been taken in Belgium are examined. Secondly, recent opinion by the Belgian Advisory Committee on (...) Bioethics with regard to ethics committees is presented and the activities of Belgian ethics committees are discussed. Finally, the option to bring research ethics and clinical ethics under the roof of just one committee is criticised using a pragmatic and a methodological argument. Concomitantly, the authors build an argument in favour of the further development of ethics consultation. (shrink)

Current UK legislation is impacting upon the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of medical record-based research aimed at benefiting the NHS and the public heath. Whereas previous commentators have focused on the Data Protection Act 1998, the Health and Social Care Act 2001 is the key legislation for public health researchers wishing to access medical records without written consent. The Act requires researchers to apply to the Patient Information Advisory Group for permission to access medical records without written permission. We present (...) a case study of the work required to obtain the necessary permissions from PIAG in order to conduct a large scale public health research project. In our experience it took eight months to receive permission to access basic identifying information on individuals registered at general practices, and a decision on whether we could access clinical information in medical records without consent took 18 months. Such delays pose near insurmountable difficulties to grant funded research, and in our case £560 000 of public and charitable money was spent on research staff while a large part of their work was prohibited until the third year of a three year grant. We conclude by arguing that many of the current problems could be avoided by returning PIAG’s responsibilities to research ethics committees, and by allowing “opt-out” consent for many public health research projects. (shrink)

Background Rationing and allocation decisions at the clinical level – bedside rationing – entail complex dilemmas that clinicians and managers often find difficult to handle. There is a lack of mechanisms and aids for promoting fair decisions, especially in hard cases. Reports indicate that clinical ethics committees sometimes handle cases that involve bedside rationing dilemmas. Can CECs have a legitimate role to play in bedside rationing? Main text Aided by two frameworks for legitimate priority setting, we discuss how CECs (...) can contribute to enhanced epistemic, procedural and political legitimacy in bedside rationing decisions. Drawing on previous work we present brief case vignettes and outline several potential roles that CECs may play, and then discuss whether these might contribute to rationing decisions becoming legitimate. In the process, key prerequisites for such legitimacy are identified. Legitimacy places demands on aspects such as the CEC’s deliberation process, the involvement of stakeholders, transparency of process, the opportunity to appeal decisions, and the competence of CEC members. On these conditions, CECs can help strengthen the legitimacy of some of the rationing decisions clinicians and managers have to make. Conclusions On specified conditions, CECs can have a well-justified advisory role to play in order to enhance the legitimacy of bedside rationing decisions. (shrink)

A new Clinical Ethics Advisory Group was created to contribute to NHS Trust policies and guidelines in response to ethical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. An ethical analysis framework used in medical education, the CoRE-Values Compass and Grid, was adapted to form a step-wise ‘ABC’ decision-making process. CEAG members found the framework simple to understand and use and the model facilitated time-efficient decisions that were explicitly justifiable on moral, ethical, professional and legal grounds. The adapted CoRE-Values framework might (...) help facilitate decision-making processes for similar new clinical ethics advisory or support committees. (shrink)

The public debate on voluntary termination of life by elderly people, which has been an intensely controversial subject in the Netherlands for some time, has centered around the issue of “completed life” in recent years. In 2016, an ad hoc governmental advisory committee concluded that the already existing Euthanasia Act provided sufficient scope to resolve most of the problems related to the issue. Most of the older adults who feel they no longer have anything to look forward to in (...) their lives and who have developed a wish to die as a result would be able to invoke this Act. Partly for this reason, the committee considered broadening the legal options relating to assisted suicide undesirable. Analysis of the assessment practice of the regional euthanasia review committees reveals that the room for interpretation offered by the Euthanasia Act is indeed considerable. (shrink)

Current UK legislation is impacting upon the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of medical record-based research aimed at benefiting the NHS and the public heath. Whereas previous commentators have focused on the Data Protection Act 1998, the Health and Social Care Act 2001 is the key legislation for public health researchers wishing to access medical records without written consent. The Act requires researchers to apply to the Patient Information Advisory Group for permission to access medical records without written permission. We present (...) a case study of the work required to obtain the necessary permissions from PIAG in order to conduct a large scale public health research project. In our experience it took eight months to receive permission to access basic identifying information on individuals registered at general practices, and a decision on whether we could access clinical information in medical records without consent took 18 months. Such delays pose near insurmountable difficulties to grant funded research, and in our case £560 000 of public and charitable money was spent on research staff while a large part of their work was prohibited until the third year of a three year grant. We conclude by arguing that many of the current problems could be avoided by returning PIAG’s responsibilities to research ethics committees, and by allowing “opt-out” consent for many public health research projects. (shrink)

Between 2013 and 2016, West Africa experienced the largest ever outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease. In the absence of registered treatments or vaccines to control this lethal disease, the World Health Organization coordinated and supported research to expedite identification of interventions that could control the outbreak and improve future control efforts. Consequently, the World Health Organization Research Ethics Review Committee was heavily involved in reviews and ethics discussions. It reviewed 24 new and 22 amended protocols for research studies including interventional (...) and observational studies. WHO-ERC provided the reviews within on average 6 working days. The WHO-ERC often could not provide immediate approval of protocols for reasons which were not Ebola Virus Disease specific but related to protocol inconsistencies, missing information and complex informed consents. WHO-ERC considerations on Ebola Virus Disease specific issues are presented. To accelerate study approval in future public health emergencies, we recommend: internally consistent and complete submissions with information documents in language participants are likely to understand, close collaboration between local and international researchers from research inception, generation of template agreements for data and sample sharing and use during the ongoing global consultations on bio-banks, formation of Joint Scientific Advisory and Data Safety Review Committees for all studies linked to a particular intervention or group of interventions, formation of a Joint Ethics Review Committee with representatives of the Ethics Committees of all institutions and countries involved to strengthen reviews through the different perspectives provided without the ‘opportunity costs’ for time to final approval of multiple, independent reviews, direct information exchange between the chairs of advisory, safety review and ethics committees, more Ethics Committee support for investigators than is standard and a global consultation on criteria for inclusion of pregnant women and children in interventional studies for conditions which put them at particularly high risk of mortality or other irreversible adverse outcomes under standard-of-care. (shrink)

To investigate the current status of hospital clinical ethics committees (CEC) and how they have evolved in Canada over the past 20 years, this paper presents an overview of the findings from a 2008 survey and compares these findings with two previous Canadian surveys conducted in 1989 and 1984. All Canadian hospitals over 100 beds, of which at least some were acute care, were surveyed to determine the structure of CEC, how they function, the perceived achievements of these (...) class='Hi'>committees and opinions about areas with which CEC should be involved. The percentage of hospitals with CEC in our sample was found to be 85% compared with 58% and 18% in 1989 and 1984, respectively. The wide variation in the size of committees and the composition of their membership has continued. Meetings of CEC have become more regularised and formalised over time. CEC continue to be predominately advisory in their nature, and by 2008 there was a shift in the priority of the activities of CEC to meeting ethics education needs and providing counselling and support with less emphasis on advising about policy and procedures. More research is needed on how best to define what the scope of activities of CEC should be in order to meet the needs of hospitals in Canada and elsewhere. More research also is needed on the actual outcomes to patients, families, health professionals and organisations from the work of these committees in order to support the considerable time committee members devote to this endeavour. (shrink)