Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Institutional Ethics Committees are responsible for reviewing, consulting, and educating about matters related to life-sustaining treatment, these committees should play a substantial role in implementing the Act in each hospital. However, there are few such committees and their operations have been limited in many respects. In this article we report on a survey that was carried out to assess the difficulties faced by 63 committee administrators. We also conducted focus-group interviews with seven medical professionals or administrators working in health care institutions in which a committee has been established. Subjects were asked about the difficulties these committees face in advising on foregoing life-sustaining treatment. The operational problems that were reported include the following: difficulties in accessing patients’ records of decisions concerning life-sustaining treatment, obstacles in using Shared Ethics Committees, legal and administrative complexities in diagnosing the end-of-life process, the lack of expertise of committee members and administrators, manpower shortages on the committees, and medical professionals’ negative views of the Act’s procedures for life-sustaining treatment decision-making. In order to deal with these problems, we suggest the following solutions: improving the accessibility of patients’ life-sustaining treatment decisions, encouraging the use of Shared Ethics Committees, defining the qualifications and training requirements for Committee members, establishing better communications among committee members; creating an educational system for medical professionals in order to improve their understanding of the committees’ role; and developing standard operating procedures for the committees.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
CHOI et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: