Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should HECs in secular institutions seek right-to-life advocates as members?

  • Point and Counterpoint
  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Engelhardt HT. Philosophy, health care, and public policy.Mobius. 1982; 2:17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lo B. Behind closed doors: Promises and pitfalls of ethics committees.New England Journal of Medicine. 1987; 317:46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jennings B. Possibilities of consensus: Toward democratic moral discourse:Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 1991; 16:447–63.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kopelman LM. How a disagreement over partiality helped form an ethics committee, inEthics at the Bedside. CM Culver, ed. 1990:127–41.

  5. Fleetwood J.,et al., Giving answers or raising questions? The problematic role of institutional ethics committees.Journal of Medical Ethics. 1989; 15:137–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kenneth De Ville Ph.D., J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Ville, K. Should HECs in secular institutions seek right-to-life advocates as members?. HEC Forum 6, 318–320 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01463344

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01463344

Keywords

Search

Navigation