Article Text
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.
- Clinical Ethics
- Ethics Committees/Consultation
- Interests of Health Personnel/Institutions
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Ethics rounds: affecting ethics quality at all organisational levels
- What is happening during case deliberations in clinical ethics committees? A pilot study
- Taking the burden off: a study of the quality of ethics consultation in the time of COVID-19
- Implementing clinical ethics in German hospitals: content, didactics and evaluation of a nationwide postgraduate training programme
- Views regarding the training of ethics consultants: a survey of physicians caring for patients in ICU
- Objectives and outcomes of clinical ethics services: a Delphi study
- Ethics consultation on demand: concepts, practical experiences and a case study
- The Ethics Liaison Program: building a moral community
- What principlism misses
- Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review