Skip to main content

Enriching Our Views on Clinical Ethics: Results of a Qualitative Study of the Moral Psychology of Healthcare Ethics Committee Members

Abstract

The contribution of healthcare ethics committee (HEC) members to HECs is fundamental. However, little is known about how HEC members view clinical ethics. We report results from a qualitative study of the moral psychology of HEC members. We found that contrary to the existing Kohlberg-based studies, HEC members hold a pragmatic non-expert view of clinical ethics based mainly on respect for persons and a commitment to the patient’s good. In general, HEC members hold deflationary views regarding moral theory. Ethical principles are not abstract foundations but the expression of moral commitments to patients that pre-exist awareness of moral theory. Emotions and proximity to patient sufferance fundamentally shape the views of HEC members on clinical ethics. Further work at the intersection of clinical ethics and qualitative research could bring to the foreground lay perspectives on moral problems that may differ from bioethics expert views.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Schick, C., & Fache, S. (1998). Ethics committees identity four key factors for success. HEC Forum, 10(1), 75–85.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dobrin, A. (2003). Moral reasoning of members of hospital ethics committees: A pilot study. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 14(4), 270–275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Parizeau, M.-H. (1995). Compétence éthique, expertise éthique et modèles de comités d’éthique clinique. In M.-H. Parizeau (Ed.) Hôpital & éthique: Rôles et défis des comités d’éthique clinique (pp. 139–166). Saint-Nicolas, Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Patenaude, J.,& Bégin, L. Raisonnement moral et argumentation. In M.-H. Parizeau (Ed.), Op. cit. (pp. 115–127).

  5. 5.

    Self, D. J., & Skeel, J. D. (1998). The moral reasoning of HEC members. HEC Forum, 10(1), 43–54.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Self, D. J., & Skeel, J. D. (1991). A study of the foundations of ethical decision making of clinical medical ethicists. Theoretical Medicine, 12(2), 117–127.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gilligan, C. (2001). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tostain, M. (1999). Psychologie, morale et culture: L’évolution de la morale de l’enfance à l’âge adulte. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rhodes, R. (1995). Love thy patient: Justice, caring, and the doctor–patient relationship. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthc Ethics, 4(4), 434–447.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fletcher, J. C., & Hoffmann, D. E. (1994). Ethics committees: Time to experiment with standards. Annals of Internal Medicine, 120(4), 335–338.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Moreno, J. (1999). Bioethics is a naturalism. In G. McGee (Ed.) Pragmatic bioethics (pp. 5–17). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Rapport d’enquête concernant les activités des comités d’éthique clinique et des comités d’éthique de la recherche au Québec: Direction des communications.

  13. 13.

    Delhomme, P., & Meyer, T. (1997). Les projets de recherche en psychologie sociale: Méthodes et techniques. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Davies, L., & Hudson, L. D. (1999). Why don’t physicians use ethics consultation? Journal of Clinical Ethics, 10(2), 116–125.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Pellegrino, E. D. (2001). The internal morality of clinical medicine: A paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26(6), 559–579.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Schmidt-Felzman, H. (2003). Pragmatic principles—Methodological pragmatism in the principle-based approach to bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 28(5–6), 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sherwin, S. (1992). Foundations, frameworks, lenses: The role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics, 13(3–4), 198–205.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., et al. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., et al. (1994). The return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. Science, 264(5162), 1102–1105.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Larouche, J.-M., & Flaherty, T. (2001). The social worker as moral agent. In H. Doucet, J. M. Larouche, & K. R. Melchin (Eds.) Ethical deliberation in multiprofessional health care teams (pp. 77–87). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Self, D. J., Gopalakrishnan, G., Kiser, W. R., et al. (1995). The relationship of empathy to moral reasoning in first-year medical students. Cambridge Quarterly Health Ethics, 4(4), 448–453.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Robertson, D. W. (1996). Ethical theory, ethnography, and differences between doctors and nurses in approaches to patient care. Journal of Medical Ethics, 22(5), 292–299.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Keffer, M. J. (1997). Why nursing ethics committees? HEC Forum, 9(1), 50–54.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Parizeau, M.-H. Quel avenir pour les comités d’éthique? In M.-H. Parizeau (Ed.), Op. cit. (pp. 222–233).

  26. 26.

    Callahan, D. (1976). Bioethics as a discipline. In H. James, & R. F. Almeder (Eds.)Biomedical ethics and the law (pp. 1–11). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Special thanks go to Dr. Hubert Doucet, Ph.D., Director, Jennifer Singh, Paula Bailey and Marie-Josée Dion for helpful comments. This work was made possible by a research scholarship from the Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l’aide à la recherche. Revision of the manuscript was made possible by support of the Fonds québécois pour la recherche sur la science et la culture, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the NIH/NINDS (RO1 #NS 045831, Judy Illes, P.I.). I am independent of the Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l’aide à la recherche, the Fonds québécois pour la recherche sur la science et la culture, the Social sciences and humanities research council of Canada and the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of Interest Statement

I have no competing interests.

Details of Ethics Approval (or a Statement that It was not Required)

Ethics approval for all participating institutions (N = 7) was obtained as detailed in the methods section. No patients were involved in the study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Racine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Racine, E. Enriching Our Views on Clinical Ethics: Results of a Qualitative Study of the Moral Psychology of Healthcare Ethics Committee Members. Bioethical Inquiry 5, 57 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9083-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Healthcare ethics committee
  • Moral psychology
  • Pragmatism
  • Clinical ethics
  • Healthcare ethics committee members