Clinical ethics committees, due process and the right to a fair hearing.
The development of clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom raises a number of important questions about the extent to which they are compatible with the normative values of due process. If committees are to be active in delivering ethics services, it is argued that attention to due process is important. Based on research outcomes, it seems that the chairs of the United Kingdom clinical ethics committees who responded are reasonably satisfied about the ability of their committees to make ethical decisions and slightly less confident about their ability to make legal decisions. If these committees are to make potentially far-reaching decisions (whether or not involving live consultations), it is argued here that they must pay attention to the rules associated with the legal concept of due process. Equally, evaluation of the clinical ethics committee's counterpart in the United States suggests that they may become increasingly authoritative, especially as their role becomes entrenched. This makes attention to due process even more important. However, it is also proposed that, when committees become concerned about due process, their ability to "do ethics" is constrained.
McLean
Sheila A M
SA
Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine, Glasgow University. S.McLean@law.gla.ac.uk
D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D028741:Ethics Committees, Clinical / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D006113:United Kingdom