Medical ethics are embedded in cultural values which evolve. Acceptance of abortion within well-de?ned legal parameters in some jurisdictions is an example of how society in?uences the way in which perceptions about ethical obligations change. Because they are often linked to the moral views predominating in society, medical ethics cannot be seen as embodying uniform standards independent of cultural context. Some countries which permit capital punishment or female genital mutilation (FGM – see CIRCUMCISION), for example, expect doctors to carry out such procedures. Some doctors would argue that their ethical obligation to minimise pain and suffering obliges them to comply, whereas others would deem their ethical obligations to be the complete opposite. The medical community attempts to address such variations by establish-ing globally applicable ethical principles through debate within bodies such as the World Medical Association (WMA) or World Psychiatric Association (WPA). Norm-setting bodies increasingly re?ect accepted concepts of human rights and patient rights within professional ethical codes.
Practical changes within society may affect the perceived balance of power within the doctor-patient relationship, and therefore have an impact on ethics. In developed societies, for example, patients are increasingly well informed about treatment options: media such as the Internet provide them with access to specialised knowledge. Social measures such as a well-established complaints system, procedures for legal redress, and guarantees of rights such as those set out in the NHS’s Patient’s Charter appear to reduce the perceived imbalance in the relationship. Law as well as ethics emphasises the importance of informed patient consent and the often legally binding nature of informed patient refusal of treatment. Ethics re?ect the changing relationship by emphasising skills such as e?ective communication and generation of mutual trust within a doctor-patient partnership.
A widely known modern code is the WMA’s International Code of Medical Ethics which seeks to provide a modern restatement of the Hippocratic principles.
Traditionally, ethical codes have sought to establish absolutist positions. The WMA code, for example, imposes an apparently absolute duty of con?dentiality which extends beyond the patient’s death. Increasingly, however, ethics are perceived as a tool for making morally appropriate decisions in a sphere where there is rarely one ‘right’ answer. Many factors – such as current emphasis on autonomy and the individual values of patients; awareness of social and cultural diversity; and the phenomenal advance of new technology which has blurred some moral distinctions about what constitutes a ‘person’ – have contributed to the perception that ethical dilemmas have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
An approach adopted by American ethicists has been moral analysis of cases using four fundamental principles: autonomy, bene?cence, non-male?cence and justice. The ‘four principles’ provide a useful framework within which ethical dilemmas can be teased out, but they are criticised for their apparent simplicity in the face of complex problems and for the fact that the moral imperatives implicit in each principle often con?ict with some or all of the other three. As with any other approach to problem-solving, the ‘four principles’ require interpretation. Enduring ethical precepts such as the obligation to bene?t patients and avoid harm (bene?cence and non-male?cence) may be differently interpreted in cases where prolongation of life is contrary to a patient’s wishes or where sentience has been irrevocably lost. In such cases, treatment may be seen as constituting a ‘harm’ rather than a ‘bene?t’.
The importance accorded to ethics in daily practice has undergone considerable development in the latter half of the 20th century. From being seen mainly as a set of values passed on from experienced practitioners to their students at the bedside, medical ethics have increasingly become the domain of lawyers, academic philosophers and professional ethicists, although the role of experienced practitioners is still considered central. In the UK, law and medical ethics increasingly interact. Judges resolve cases on the basis of established medical ethical guidance, and new ethical guidance draws in turn on common-law judgements in individual cases. The rapid increase in specialised journals, conferences and postgraduate courses focused on ethics is testimony to the ever-increasing emphasis accorded to this area of study. Multidisciplinary practice has stimulated the growth of the new discipline of ‘health-care ethics’ which seeks to provide uniformity across long-established professional boundaries. The trend is to set common standards for a range of health professionals and others who may have a duty of care, such as hospital chaplains and ancillary workers. Since a primary function of ethics is to ?nd reasonable answers in situations where di?erent interests or priorities con?ict, managers and health-care purchasers are increasingly seen as potential partners in the e?ort to establish a common approach. Widely accepted ethical values are increasingly applied to the previously unacknowledged dilemmas of rationing scarce resources.
In modern debate about ethics, two important trends can be identi?ed. As a result of the increasingly high pro?le accorded to applied ethics, there is a trend for professions not previously subject to widely agreed standards of behaviour to adopt codes of ethical practice. Business ethics or the ethics of management are comparatively new. At the same time, there is some debate about whether professionals, such as doctors, traditionally subject to special ethical duties, should be seen as simply doing a job for payment like any other worker. As some doctors perceive their power and prestige eroded by health-care managers deciding on how and when to ration care and pressure for patients to exercise autonomy about treatment decisions, it is sometimes argued that realistic limits must be set on medical obligations. A logical implication of patient choice and rejection of medical paternalism would appear to be a concomitant reduction in the freedom of doctors to carry out their own ethical obligations. The concept of conscientious objection, incorporated to some extent in law (e.g. in relation to abortion) ensures that doctors are not obliged to act contrary to their own personal or professional values.... ethics
Clinical psychologists are involved in health care in the following ways: (1) Assessment of thoughts, emotions and behaviour using standardised methods. (2) Treatment based on theoretical models and scienti?c evidence about behaviour change. Behaviour change is considered when it contributes to physical, psychological or social functioning. (3) Consultation with other health-care professionals about problems concerning emotions, thinking and behaviour. (4) Research on a wide variety of topics including the relationship between stress, psychological functioning and disease; the aetiology of problem behaviours; methods and theories of behaviour change. (5) Teaching other professionals about normal and dysfunctional behaviour, emotions and functioning.
Clinical psychologists may specialise in work in particular branches of patient care, including surgery, psychiatry, geriatrics, paediatrics, mental handicap, obstetrics and gynaecology, cardiology, neurology, general practice and physical rehabilitation. Whilst the focus of their work is frequently the patient, at times it may encompass the behaviour of the health-care professionals.... clinical psychology
The most common – Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) – have provided a monitoring system of research on humans since the late 1960s. Established by NHS health authorities, LRECs were primarily perceived as exercising authority over research carried out on NHS patients or on NHS premises or using NHS records. Their power and signi?cance, however, developed considerably in the 1980s and 90s when national and international guidance made approval by an ‘appropriately constituted’ ethics committee obligatory for any research project involving humans or human tissue. The work of LRECs is supplemented by so-called ‘independent’ ethics committees usually set up by pharmaceutical companies, and since 1997 by multicentre research ethics committees (MRECs). An MREC is responsible for considering all health-related research which will be conducted within ?ve or more locations. LRECs have become indispensable to the conduct of research, and are doubtless partly responsible for the lack of demand in the UK for legislation governing research. A plethora of guidelines is available, and LRECs which fail to comply with recognised standards could incur legal liability. They are increasingly governed by international standards of practice. In 1997, guidelines produced by the International Committee on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) were introduced into the UK. These provide a uni?ed standard for research conducted in the European Union, Japan and United States to ensure the mutual acceptance of clinical data by the regulatory authorities in these countries.
Other categories of ethics committee include Ethics Advisory Committees, which debate dif?cult patient cases. Most are attached to specialised health facilities such as fertility clinics or children’s care facilities. The 1990s have seen a greatly increased interest in professional ethics and the establishment of many new ethics committees, including some like that of the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services which cross professional boundaries. Guidance on professional and ethical standards is produced by these new bodies and by the well-established ethics committees of regulatory or representative bodies, such as the medical and nursing Royal Colleges, the General Medical Council, United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, British Medical Association (see APPENDIX 8: PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATIONS) and bodies representing paramedics and professions supplementary to medicine. Their guidance ranges from general codes of practice to detailed analysis of single topics such as EUTHANASIA or surrogacy.
LRECs are now supervised by a central body
– COREC (www.corec.gov.org.uk).... ethics committees
An appreciation of the need to account for chance and bias has led to development of methods where new treatments are compared to either a PLACEBO or to the standard treatment (or both) in a controlled, randomised clinical trial. ‘Controlled’ means that there is a comparison group of patients not receiving the test intervention, and ‘randomised’ implies that patients have been assigned to one or other treatment group entirely by chance and not because of their doctor’s preference. If possible, trials are ‘double-blind’ – that is, neither the patient nor the investigator knows who is receiving which intervention until after the trial is over. All such trials must follow proper ethical standards with the procedure fully explained to patients and their consent obtained.
The conduct, e?ectiveness and duplication of clinical trials have long been subjects of debate. Apart from occasional discoveries of deliberately fraudulent research (see RESEARCH FRAUD AND MISCONDUCT), the structure of some trials are unsatisfactory, statistical analyses are sometimes disputed and major problems have been the – usually unwitting – duplication of trials and non-publication of some trials, restricting access to their ?ndings. Duplication occurs because no formal international mechanism exists to enable research workers to discover whether a clinical trial they are planning is already underway elsewhere or has been completed but never published, perhaps because the results were negative, or no journal was willing to publish it, or the authors or funding authorities decided not to submit it for publication.
In the mid 1980s a proposal was made for an international register of clinical trials. In 1991 the NHS launched a research and development initiative and, liaising with the COCHRANE COLLABORATION, set out to collect systematically data from published randomised clinical trials. In 1994 the NHS set up a Centre for Reviews and Dissemination which, among other responsibilities, maintains a database of research reviews to provide NHS sta? with relevant information.
These e?orts are hampered by availability of information about trials in progress and unpublished completed trials. With a view to improving accessibility of relevant information, the publishers of Current Science, in 1998, launched an online metaregister of ongoing randomised controlled trials.
Subsequently, in October 1999, the editors of the British Medical Journal and the Lancet argued that the case for an international register of all clinical trials prior to their launch was unanswerable. ‘The public’, they said, ‘has the right to know what research is being funded. Researchers and research funders don’t want to waste resources repeating trials already underway.’ Given the widening recognition of the importance to patients and doctors of the practice of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, the easy availability of information on planned, ongoing and completed clinical trials is vital. The register was ?nally set up in 2005.... clinical trials
NICE – its Scottish equivalent is the Scottish Health Technology Assessment Centre – has three main functions:
appraisal of new and existing technologies.
development of clinical guidelines.
promotion of clinical audit and con?dential inquiries. Central to its task is public concern about ‘postcode prescribing’ – that is, di?erent availability of health care according to geography.
In 2003 the World Health Organisation appraised NICE. Amongst its recomendations were that there should be greater consistency in the methods used for appraisal and the way in which results and decisions were reported. WHO was concerned about the need for transparency about the con?ict between NICE’s use of manufacturers’ commercial evidence in con?dence, and believed there should be greater de?nition of justi?cation for ‘threshold’ levels for cost-e?ectiveness in the Centre’s judgement of what represents value for money.
In all, WHO was congratulatory – but questions remain about the practical value and imlementation of NICE guidelines.... national institute for clinical excellence (nice)
Rule 1. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in an honourable manner in their relations with their patients, the public, and with other members of the Institute.
The relationship between a medical herbalist and his or her patient is that of a professional with a client. The patient puts complete trust in the practitioner’s integrity and it is the duty of members not to abuse this trust in any way. Proper moral conduct must always be paramount in member’s relationships with patients. Members must act with consideration concerning fees and justification for treatment.
Rule 2. No member may advertise or allow his or her name to be advertised in any way, except in the form laid down by the Council of the Institute.
Any form of commercialism in the conduct of a herbal practice is unseemly and undesirable. Particular considerations govern commencement of practice, partnerships, assistantships, door plates, signs, letter headings, broadcasts, etc.
Rule 3. Members shall comply at all times with the requirements of the Code of Practice.
Rule 4. Members shall not give formal courses of instructions in the practice of herbal medicine without the approval of the Council of the Institute.
Rule 5. It is required that members apply the Code of Practice to all their professional activities.
Rule 6. Infringement of the Ethical Code renders members liable to disciplinary action with subsequent loss of privileges and benefits of the Institute. ... code of ethics
Guidance on good medical practice from the website of the General Medical Council... medical ethics
A detailed guide to publication ethics from COPE... publication ethics
Health Encyclopedia