Skip to main content
Log in

Falling on deaf ears: a qualitative study on clinical ethical committees in France

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The French medical context is characterized by institutionalization of the ethical reflection in health care facilities and an important disparity between spaces of ethical reflection. In theory, the healthcare professional may mobilise an arsenal of resources to help him in his ethical reflection. But what happens in practice? We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 health-care professionals who did and did not have recourse to clinical ethical committees. We also implemented two focus groups with 18 professionals involved in various spaces of ethical reflection in order to let them debate about a better way to organize ethical reflection in their institutional contexts. The qualitative analysis allows to us to underline the coexistence of different conceptions of ethics among health care professionals. We also observed that the participants in our study shared the experience of ethically problematic situations as roadblocks in the process of communication and decision-making. We therefore report the factors which favour or inhibit the ethical course leading to the resolution or at the very least soothing of the situation at hand. Finally, we discuss methodological issues and underline the fact that while the patient is at the heart of the professional’s ethical preoccupations, this does not imply that they are actors in decisions that concern them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. CPDPNs are committees made up of physicians and aimed in particular at examining the conformity of the couple’s requests of abortion for medical motives with the law.

References

  • Baribeau, Colette. 2009. L’analyse des données des entretiens de groupe. Recherches Qualitatives 18 (1): 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, Jane T., Judith E. Brown, and Victoria M. Ward. 1992. Techniques for analyzing focus group data. Evaluation Review 16: 198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchet, Alain. 1982. Épistémologie critique de l’entretien d’enquête de style non directif. Bulletin de Psychologie 26 (358): 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boitte, Pierre, Dominique Jacquemin, Thierry Vanderlinden, Olivier Nuttens, and Jean-Philippe Cobbaut. 2012. De l’usage d’une grille d’éthique clinique décisionnelle à la constitution d’un lieu d’apprentissage collectif. Journal International de Bioéthique 23: 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevrolet, Jean-Claude. 2002. Les comités locaux d’éthique clinique hospitaliers. Revue Médicale Suisse 2: 22451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubech, Lin. 2012. Le comité de bioéthique du centre hospitalier universitaire de Bordeaux. Journal International de Bioéthique 23: 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decree n°83-132 of 23 February 1983 on the Creation of a National Ethical Consultative Committee for life sciences and health. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000687778. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Dekeuwer, Catherine, Roland Chvetzoff, Cyril Clouzeau, and Nicolas Kopp. 2011. Réflexion éthique et institutionnalisation de l’éthique. Ethique & Santé 8 (3): 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Désiré, Clémence. 2014. Ethique de la recherche. Recherche en éthique. Malaises et paradoxes d’un terrain en comité d’éthique hospitalier. Journal des anthropologues https://journals.openedition.org/jda/4603. Accessed 29 Aug 2018.

  • Fédération Hospitalière de France. 2016. Les comités d’éthique dans les établissements publics de santé. Internal Document.

  • Førde, Reidun, Reidar Pederson, and Victoria Akre. 2008. Clinician’s evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: A qualitative study. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11: 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, Véronique, Marta Spranzi, Nicolas Foureur, and Laurence Brunet. 2015. The “Commitment Model” for clinical ethics consultations: Society’s involvement in the solution of individual cases. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 26 (4): 286–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Ellen. 2010. Integrated ethics: An innovative program to improve ethics quality in health care. The Innovation Journal: The PublicSector Innovation Journal 15 (2): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haute Authorité de Santé. Certification Manual for Healthcare Institutions 2010. https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2008-12/20081217_manuel_v2010_nouvelle_maquette.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Haute Autorité de Santé. The Evaluation of Ethical Aspects at the HAS. https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-05/levaluation_des_aspects_ethiques_a_la_has.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Hurst, Samia A., Sara C. Hull, Gordon DuVal, and Marion Danis. 2005. How physicians face ethical difficulties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isambert, François-André. 1983. De la bioéthique aux comités d’éthique. Etudes 5 (358): 671–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolivet, Alexia. 2015. Rapport de l’Observatoire: Étude des démarches en éthique du soin et de l’accompagnement dans les établissements de santé en Ile-de-France. http://www.espace-ethique.org/ressources/%C3%A9tuderapport/rapport-de-lobservatoire-%C3%A9tude-des-d%C3%A9marches-en-%C3%A9thique-du-soin-et-de. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Kaufmann, Jean-Claude. 2007. L’entretien compréhensif. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, Pamela S., and Mark B. Parshall. 2000. Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research 10 (3): 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law Number 88-1138 du 20 December 1988, Article L 1123-7 CSP, relative to the protection of persons in biomedical research. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000508831. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Law Number 2002-303 du 4 mars 2002, Article 5, Relative to the rights of the sick and the quality of the healthcare system (1). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000227015. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Law Number 2004-800 of 6th August 2004 relative to Bioethics (1). Ethics and Biomedicine. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000441469. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Le Mintier-Feuillet, Brigitte. Les comités régionaux d’éthique en France. Réalités et perspectives. 1998. Paris: MIRE.

  • Lilti, Thomas. Hippocrates. 2014.

  • Magelssen, Morten, Reidar Pedersen, and Reidun Førde. 2016. Novel paths to relevance: How clinical Ethics Committees promote ethical reflection. HEC Forum 28: 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Brian S., Gary Shank, Jestin N. Carlson, and Arvind Venkat. 2015. Qualitative analysis of healthcare professionals’ viewpoints on the role of ethics committees and hospitals in the resolution of clinical ethical dilemas. HEC Forum 27 (1): 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markova, Ivana. 2003. Les focus groups. In Les méthodes en sciences humaines, ed. S. Moscovici and F. Buschini, 220–242. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, Sheila. 2007. What and who are clinical ethics committees for? Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (9): 497–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mino, Jean-Christophe. 2002. Lorsque l’autonomie du médecin est remise en cause par l’autonomie du patient: Le champ hospitalier de l’éthique clinique aux Etats-Unis et en France. Revue Française des Affaires Sociales 2002 (3): 69–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Consultative Committee for Ethics. http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/fr/pages/presentation-du-comite-consultatif-national-dethique-pour-les-sciences-de-la-vie-et-de-la. Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Pederson, Reidar, Victoria Akre, and Reidun Førde. 2009. Barriers and challenges in clinical ethics consultations: The experiences of nine clinical ethics committees. Bioethics 23 (8): 460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasoal, Dara, Kirsti Skovdahl, Mervyn Gifford, and Annica Kihlgren. 2017. Clinical ethics support for healthcare personnel: An integrative literature review. HEC Forum 29: 314–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Theil, Steila. 2003. Balancing the perspectives. The patient’s role in clinical ethics consultation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinkamp, Norbert, and Bert Gordijn. 2003. Ethical case deliberation on the ward. A comparison of four methods. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Susan. 2006. Ethics Committees and due process: Nesting rights in a community of caring. Maryland Law Review 50 (3): 805–811.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to warmly thank the participants in this study as well as the students who contributed to a part of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Dekeuwer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dekeuwer, C., Bogaert, B., Eggert, N. et al. Falling on deaf ears: a qualitative study on clinical ethical committees in France. Med Health Care and Philos 22, 515–529 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09907-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09907-5

Keywords

Navigation