Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics Committees, Innovative Surgery, and Organizational Ethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethics of Innovation in Neurosurgery

Abstract

Innovation can make neurosurgical treatments more effective and safer for patients. However, surgical innovation is relatively less regulated than innovations in medical specialties and more subject to the discretion of individual physicians. As such, the ethics of specific surgical innovations are usually managed at the institutional and individual level. In addition to a well-developed individual medical ethic on the part of the surgeon and treatment team, a strong organizational ethic is needed by institutions developing surgical innovations. Hospital ethics committees comprised of physicians, nursing staff, administrators, and community members can help address organizational ethics questions as they arise.

Here, a case from an American teaching hospital is used as an illustration of how a hospital ethics committee can help surgeons and hospital administrators navigate the ethical issues that arise in innovative treatments. Ultimately, it makes most sense to enlist the aid of clinical ethics committees to perform organizational ethics consultations, and an open line of communication between surgeons, hospital administrators, and ethics committees should be nurtured in order to achieve the most ethically defensible outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aulisio MP. Why did hospital ethics committees emerge in the US? AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(5):546–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fine RL. From Quinlan to Schiavo: medical, ethical, and legal issues in severe brain injury. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2005;18(4):303–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Courtwright A, Jurchak M. The evolution of American Hospital Ethics Committees: a systematic review. J Clin Ethics. 2016;27(4):322–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGee G, Caplan AL, Spanogle JP, Asch DA. A national study of ethics committees. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(4):60–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Joint Commission Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Hosp Food Nutr Focus. 1992;9(3):1, 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bruce CR, Majumder MA, Stephens A, Malek J, McGuire A. Cultivating administrative support for a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service. J Clin Ethics. 2016;27(4):341–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen YY, Chu TS, Kao YH, Tsai PR, Huang TS, Ko WJ. To evaluate the effectiveness of health care ethics consultation based on the goals of health care ethics consultation: a prospective cohort study with randomization. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lemiengre J, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Schotsmans P, Gastmans C. Written institutional ethics policies on euthanasia: an empirical-based organizational-ethical framework. Med Health Care Philos. 2014;17(2):215–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Magelssen M, Pedersen R, Førde R. Novel paths to relevance: how clinical ethics committees promote ethical reflection. HEC Forum. 2016;28(3):205–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Aulisio MP, Arnold RM. Role of the ethics committee: helping to address value conflicts or uncertainties. Chest. 2008;134(2):417–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown M. Ethics in organizations. Issues Ethics. 1989;2(1). https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/homepage.html.

  12. Blustein J. Organizational ethics and health care providers. APA Newsl Philos Med. 1991;90(2):6–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinney S, Ho A. The Puck Stops Here: taking organizational accountability seriously. Healthc Q. 2016;18(4):20–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berlinger N, Dietz E. Time-out: the professional and organizational ethics of speaking up in the OR. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(9):925–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Naylor M, Berlinger N. Transitional care: a priority for health care organizational ethics. Hast Cent Rep. 2016;46(Suppl 1):S39–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sabin JE. How can clinical ethics committees take on organizational ethics? Some practical suggestions. J Clin Ethics. 2016;27(2):111–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf JS. Point and counterpoint. Should HECs report to the medical staff rather than to the administration, board of trustees, or other administrative office? Yes. HEC Forum. 1993;5(2):115–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolf JS, deBlois J. Point and counterpoint: should HECs report to the medical staff rather than to the administration, board of trustees, or other administrative office? Fordham Int Law J. 1993;5(2):115–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Otto IA, Breugem CC, Malda J, Bredenoord AL. Ethical considerations in the translation of regenerative biofabrication technologies into clinic and society. Biofabrication. 2016;8(4):042001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ergina PL, Barkun JS, McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, Group I. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ. 2013;346:f3011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, Heneghan C, Diener MK, Group I. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ. 2013;346:f3012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Broekman ML, Carrière ME, Bredenoord AL. Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(25):e3790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Joseph P. Castlen

  2. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Thomas I. Cochrane

Authors
  1. Joseph P. Castlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas I. Cochrane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas I. Cochrane .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center & Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague and Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marike L. D. Broekman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Castlen, J.P., Cochrane, T.I. (2019). Ethics Committees, Innovative Surgery, and Organizational Ethics. In: Broekman, M. (eds) Ethics of Innovation in Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05502-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05502-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05501-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05502-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation