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
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Bioethics and multiculturalism: nuancing the discussion
- Sweetening the scent: commentary on “What principlism misses”
- The problem of ‘thick in status, thin in content’ in Beauchamp and Childress' principlism
- Determining the common morality's norms in the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics
- Why not common morality?
- 30 Years Principles of biomedical ethics: introduction to a symposium on the 6th edition of Tom L Beauchamp and James F Childress' seminal work
- 30 Years Principles of biomedical ethics: introduction to a symposium on the 6th edition of Tom L Beauchamp and James F Childress' seminal work
- What principlism misses
- Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”
- A waste of time: the problem of common morality in Principles of Biomedical Ethics