Hartford Hospital Ethics Committee: Membership policy

Document Exchange

Hartford Hospital Ethics Committee: Membership policy     

美国医院伦理委员会产生的原因探析

医院伦理委员会在促进现代医院管理、推进现代医疗卫生事业的发展和现代医学科学的发展以及现代社会的发展进步中发挥着特别重要的作用.美国是世界上医院伦理委员会产生最早的国家.文章就美国医院伦理委员会产生的原因进行了客观深入的探析,透视了美国医院伦理委员会产生的背景,这对推进我国医院伦理委员会的建设与发展必将有重要的启发.     

医院伦理委员会名与实的几点思考

从医院伦理委员会存在的价值出发,指出目前医院伦理委员会名不副实的几大因素主要为制度缺陷、机构设置不科学、人员组成不合理,当然文化差异以及人文科学相对落后于自然科学的大背景等环境影响,也是其中的原因之一。因此,要通过大力健全制度,完善机制,在保证伦理审查的正义性、客观性和公正性的基础上不断提升伦理审查实践运用能力,使得医院伦理委员会名副其实。     

医院伦理委员会名与实的几点思考

从医院伦理委员会存在的价值出发,指出目前医院伦理委员会名不副实的几大因素主要为制度缺陷、机构设置不科学、人员组成不合理,当然文化差异以及人文科学相对落后于自然科学的大背景等环境影响,也是其中的原因之一。因此,要通过大力健全制度,完善机制,在保证伦理审查的正义性、客观性和公正性的基础上不断提升伦理审查实践运用能力,使得医院伦理委员会名副其实。     

关于建立医院伦理委员会的思考

社会主义市场经济的建立以及科学技术的进步,极大地推动了医学科学事业的迅猛发展,同时亦会产生出许多医患矛盾和医德难题,从而在客观上越来越迫切地要求基层医疗单位建立专门机构来研究、协调和解决这些新矛盾、新问题。那么,医院伦理委员会的建立就成为必然,作者从世界性医德难题的出现入手,重点阐述了医院伦理委员会产生的社会历史背景,及其内涵特征、地位功能等,并对医院伦理委员会建立过程中应注意的几个问题提出了独特的看法。     

上海市医院伦理委员会伦理审核工作现状分析

对上海市33所公立医院进行了涉及人体生物医学研究的伦理审核状况的调查，结果显示，绝大多数医院伦理委员会均设有初始审核、快速审核与不良事件审核的相应操作规程和要求，但跟踪审核和不良事件审核需进一步加强，上海市医院伦理委员会的伦理审核程序需进一步统一。     

医院伦理委员会建设中存在的问题与对策

面对复杂而又深刻的伦理冲突,分析了医院伦理委员会产生的背景和重要意义,通过阐述目前我国医院伦理委员会建设中存在的问题,提出了加强医院伦理委员会建设的对策和建议。     

To what extent should a Hospital Ethics Committee be involved in hospital policy formation?

Summary The extent to which a HEC becomes involved with policy formation depends in large measure on the credibility the committee has within the institution. Although on the basis of training, insight, or experience the HEC is in an ideal position to formulate policy, premature involvement in this area can jeopardize the effectiveness of the HEC in other areas which are equally if not more important. To the extent that the HEC does engage in policy formation it must do so with considerable political as well as ethical acumen.     

Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are increasingly institutionalised as a feature of research practice, but have remained strangely neglected by social scientists. In this paper, we argue that analysis of letters from RECs to researchers offers important insights into how RECs operate. We report a traditional content analysis and an ethnographic content analysis of 141 letters to researchers, together with an analysis of the organisational and institutional arrangements for RECs in the UK. We show that REC letters perform three important social functions. First, they define what is deemed by a REC to be ethical practice for any particular application, and confer authority on that definition. They do this actively, through comments on particular aspects of proposals, and passively, through silences about other aspects. Second, they provide an account of the work of the REC, and function as a form of institutional display. Third, they specify the nature of the relationship between the REC and the applicant, casting the applicant in a supplicant role and requiring forms of docility. Writing and reading REC letters require highly specific competences, and engage both parties in a Bourdieusian "game" that discourages challenges from researchers. The authority of RECs' decisions derives not from their appeal to the moral superiority of any ethical position, but through their place in the organisational structure and the social positioning of the parties to the process thus implied. Letters are the critical point at which RECs act on researchers and their projects.