The last three articles within this section of Cambridge Quarterly have focused on organizations or disciplines outside the mainstream of bioethics that are making inroads within the field. This issue's article may be viewed as a departure, but it is not-my thesis is that despite the active presence of the clergy in the ethics field, individuals involved in pastoral care are often thought by health professionals, as well as by a sizeable number of pastors themselves, to not be within the (...) mainstream of ethical decision-making for patients. (shrink)

In the last issue of Cambridge Quarterly, I summarized several sessions on bioethics held at conferences sponsored by organizations that are not usually thought of as being in the mainstream of bioethics. In particular, I mentioned the American Public Health Associtation and the American Anthropological Association as examples of organizations with broad interdisciplinary memberships that have developed specialized interests in the relationships between their respective fields and healthcare ethics. The article pointed out that there are other voices outside the field (...) of bioethics that make valuable contributions to the shape, function, and direction the field takes. (shrink)

The shape, function, and dynamic of the field of bioethics is in constant flux, and nowhere is this more apparent than at gatherings of those immersed in th discipline. This section presents coverage and commentary on conferences and settings where voices out-side the mainstream of biomedical ethics can be heard.

Although the incidence and composition of HECs has been well characterized, little is known about how HECs assess their performance. In order to describe the incidence of HEC self-evaluation, the methods HECs use to evaluate their performance, and the characteristics of HECs that influence self-evaluation, we surveyed the readers ofHospital Ethics. 290 HECs in 45 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and three Canadian provinces, completed questionnaires. Of the 241 HECs included in the data analysis, 97.9% had performed (...) some self-evaluation. Responding committees largely made formative rather than summative evaluations and appeared to evaluate performance in light of their own objectives rather than basing assessments on specific structural, process, and outcome measures of quality. Responding committees used certain evaluation criteria more extensively than others — among these, the number of participants and staff knowledge of the service provided — with the choice of criteria differing with the function being evaluated. Eight characteristics of HECs influenced the probability of self-evaluation, including age, number of beds and meetings, the existence of a mission statement, and a budget. The presence of certain characteristics made HECs six times more likely to evaluate their performance than HECs without the characteristic. (shrink)