Involving parents in paediatric clinical ethics committee deliberations : a current controversy
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ..
In cases where the best interests of the child are disputed or finely balanced, Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) can provide a valuable source of advice to clinicians and trusts on the pertinent ethical dimensions. Recent judicial cases have criticised the lack of formalised guidance and inconsistency in the involvement of parents in CEC deliberations. In Manchester University NHS FT v Verden [2022], Arbuthnot J set out important procedural guidance as to how parental involvement in CEC deliberations might be managed. She also confirmed substantive guidance on the role of parental views in determining the child's best interests. We agree that it is good practice to ensure that the patient voice is heard in ethics processes, but how that is achieved is controversial. Surely it is best that what matters most to a patient and their family, whether facts or values, is conveyed directly to those considering the moral issues involved, rather than via a prism of another party. The approach suggested in the Verden case has much in common with the process used by our CEC. In this article, we commend Arbuthnot J's approach, provide an example of its effective operation and consider what it might mean for ethics processes.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:49 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of medical ethics - 49(2023), 11 vom: 20. Nov., Seite 733-736 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Archard, David [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 23.10.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1136/jme-2022-108460 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM346435803 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM346435803 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226031441.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/jme-2022-108460 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1154.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM346435803 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36127126 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Archard, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Involving parents in paediatric clinical ethics committee deliberations |b a current controversy |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 23.10.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. | ||
| 520 | |a In cases where the best interests of the child are disputed or finely balanced, Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) can provide a valuable source of advice to clinicians and trusts on the pertinent ethical dimensions. Recent judicial cases have criticised the lack of formalised guidance and inconsistency in the involvement of parents in CEC deliberations. In Manchester University NHS FT v Verden [2022], Arbuthnot J set out important procedural guidance as to how parental involvement in CEC deliberations might be managed. She also confirmed substantive guidance on the role of parental views in determining the child's best interests. We agree that it is good practice to ensure that the patient voice is heard in ethics processes, but how that is achieved is controversial. Surely it is best that what matters most to a patient and their family, whether facts or values, is conveyed directly to those considering the moral issues involved, rather than via a prism of another party. The approach suggested in the Verden case has much in common with the process used by our CEC. In this article, we commend Arbuthnot J's approach, provide an example of its effective operation and consider what it might mean for ethics processes | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a child | |
| 650 | 4 | |a ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a ethics committees | |
| 650 | 4 | |a family | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cave, Emma |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Brierley, Joe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d 1976 |g 49(2023), 11 vom: 20. Nov., Seite 733-736 |w (DE-627)NLM000033065 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:49 |g year:2023 |g number:11 |g day:20 |g month:11 |g pages:733-736 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108460 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 49 |j 2023 |e 11 |b 20 |c 11 |h 733-736 | ||