Ethics Committees: Talking the Captain Through Troubled Waters

  • Nancy M. P. King
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 29)


Good navigation is a matter of using a lot of information to make a lot of decisions. You need an abundance of technical knowledge about your ship and crew, the stars, the waters you are in and where you are bound. You need experience to line up the pros and cons of each possible route and destination, as well as the probabilities of successfully executing any maneuver you choose. And you need to be able to map your course according to your needs and goals: where you are going, and how — and how fast — you want to get there. Many of the decisions to be made on a given voyage are easy, straightforward, or indisputable; some are difficult and highly technical; at least a few are likely to be risky or controversial.


Moral Identity Hospital Ethic Committee Moral Community Health Care Decision Moral Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adjunct Legal Task Force on Biomedical Ethics: 1985, Report, Legal Issues and Guidance for Hospital Biomedical Ethics Committees, American Hospital Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aitchison v. State, 204 Md. 538, 105 A.2d 495 (Md. Ct. App. 1959).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Academy of Pediatrics: 1984, Guidelines for Infant Bioethics Committees, AAP, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Hospital Association: 1984, Guidelines, Hospital Committees on Biomedical Ethics, AHA, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Annas, G.: 1982, ‘Forced Cesareans: The Most Unkindest Cut of AH’, Hastings Center Report 12, 16–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Annas, G.: 1984, ‘The Case of Elizabeth Bouvia’, Hastings Center Report 14, 20–21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bosk, C.: 1979, Forgive and Remember, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burt, R.: 1979, Taking Care of Strangers, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burt, R.: 1977, ‘The Limits of Law in Regulating Health Care Decisions’, Hastings Center Report 7, 29–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Capron, A.: 1978, ‘Right to Refuse Medical Care’, in W. Reich (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Vol. 4, The Free Press, New York, pp. 1498–1507.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Churchill, L. and Siman, J.: 1982, ‘Abortion and the Rhetoric of Individual Rights’, Hastings Center Report 12, 9–12.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duff, R.: 1988, ‘Unshared and Shared Decision Making: Reflections on Helplessness and Healing’, in this volume, pp. 191–221.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faden, R. and Beauchamp, T. with King, N.: 1986, A History and Theory of Informed Consent, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fost, N. and Cranford, R.: 1985, ‘Hospital Ethics Committees’, Journal of the American Medical Association 253, 2687–2692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golding, M.: Moral Communities (manuscript in preparation).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gross, S.: 1984, Of Foxes and Henhouses: Licensing and the Health Professions, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunter, K.: 1985, ‘Limiting Treatment in a Social Vacuum’, Archives of Internal Medicine 145, 716–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Judicial Council of the American Medical Association: 1985, ‘Guidelines for Ethics Committees in Health Care Institutions’, Journal of the American Medical Association 253, 2698–2699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kane, F.: 1985, ‘Keeping Elizabeth Bouvia Alive for the Public Good’, Hastings Center Report 15, 5–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katz, J.: 1984, The Silent World of Doctor and Patient, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    King, N.: 1987, ‘Federal and State Regulation of Neonatal Decision-Making’, in R. Mactmillan (ed.), Euthanasia and the Newborn: Conflicts Regarding Saving Lives, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 89–115.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Model Guidelines for Health Care Providers to Establish Infant Care Review Committees: 1985, Federal Register 50, 14893–14901.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Bipmedical and Behavioral Research: 1978, Report and Recommendations: Institutional Review Boards, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1983, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1982, Making Health Care Decisions, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ‘Protection of Human Subjects’, 1985, Code of Federal Regulations 45, Part 46, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647 (1976).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosner, F.: 1985, ‘Hospital Medical Ethics Committees: A Review of Their Development’, Journal of the American Medical Association 253, 2693–2697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shipley, W. E.: 1967, ‘Liability of Physician or Surgeon for Extending Operation or Treatment Beyond that Expressly Authorized’, American Law Reports 2d 56, 695–706.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Starr, P.: 1982, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    State ex rel. Schneider v. Ligett, 223 Kan. 610, 376 P.2d 221 (1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy M. P. King
    • 1
  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations