title: Sources of bias in clinical ethics case deliberation.
abstract: A central task for clinical ethics consultants and committees (CEC) is providing analysis of, and advice on, prospective or retrospective clinical cases. However, several kinds of biases may threaten the integrity, relevance or quality of the CEC's deliberation. Bias should be identified and, if possible, reduced or counteracted. This paper provides a systematic classification of kinds of bias that may be present in a CEC's case deliberation. Six kinds of bias are discussed, with examples, as to their significance and risk factors. Possible remedies are suggested. The potential for bias is greater when the case deliberation is performed by an individual ethics consultant than when an entire clinical ethics committee is involved.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
authors.forename: Morten
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Magelssen
authors.affiliation: Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
authors.forename: Reidar
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Pedersen
authors.affiliation: Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
authors.forename: Reidun
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Førde
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D001675:Bioethics; D028741:Ethics Committees, Clinical / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D033061:Ethics Consultation / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D006761:Hospitals; D006801:Humans; D007603:Jurisprudence; D009014:Morals; D011287:Prejudice / Q000145:classification*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012926:Social Control, Formal; D000078329:Workforce
keywords: Clinical Ethics; Ethics Committees/Consultation; Interests of Health Personnel/Institutions