Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:34:07.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Morality, Authority, and Ethics Committees: How Far Should Respect for Institutional Morality Go?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Erich H. Loewy
Erich H. Loewy
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria and Associate Professor of Humanities (Ethics) at the University of Illinois at Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Virtually all persons who have had a hand in shaping the concept of ethics committees in this country accept the principle that the individuals making up the ethics committee should represent different interests, backgrounds, and viewpoints. In other words, ethics committees are intended mainly to represent the interests of the communities they serve. However, ethics committees often also serve hospitals that are religiously based and who, not unreasonably, may insist on affirming their own institutional morality and their own peculiar way of looking at some problems. Deep-seated ethical quandaries, especially in shaping policy, are often unavoidable.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 578 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Ross, JW, Glaser, JW, Rasinski-Gregory, D et al. , Handbook for Hospital Ethics Committees. American Hospital Publications, 1993.Google Scholar

2. Gibson, JM, Kushner, TK. Will the conscience of an institution become society's servant? Hastings Center Report 1986;16:9–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Copleston, FC. Aquinas. London: Penguin, 1978.Google Scholar

4. Aristotle, . Nicomacchean Ethics [Ostwald, M., trans.]. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.Google Scholar

5. Kant, I. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In W, Weichedel, ed. Emmanuel Kant Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Band VII. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar

6. Mill, JS. On Liberty. New York: Norton, 1975.Google Scholar

7. Dewey, J. Human Nature and Conduct. In JA, Boydston, ed. John Dewey, the Middle Works. Vol. 14. Carbondale, Illinois; Southern Illinois University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

8. Moreno, JD. The social individual in clinical ethics. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1992;3:53–55.Google ScholarPubMed

9. Rousseau, JJ. Du Contrat Social [Grimsley, R., ed.]. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar