Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Med Ethics. 2014 Oct;40(10):678-82. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101604. Epub 2013 Sep 18.

Sources of bias in clinical ethics case deliberation.

Author information

1
Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
2
Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

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.

KEYWORDS:

Clinical Ethics; Ethics Committees/Consultation; Interests of Health Personnel/Institutions

PMID:
24047567
DOI:
10.1136/medethics-2013-101604
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire
Loading ...
Support Center