Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35967459›Full record

ArticleClinical ethics2022

Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery.

Priscilla Alderson, Deborah Bowman, Joe Brierley, Martin J Elliott, Romana Kazmi, Rosa Mendizabal-Espinosa, Jonathan Montgomery, Katy Sutcliffe, Hugo Wellesley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Priscilla AldersonSocial Research Institute, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4002-4501
Deborah BowmanMedical Ethics, St George's Hospital, UK.
Joe BrierleyGreat Ormond Street Children's Hospital, London, UK.
Martin J ElliottCardiothoracic Surgery, University College London, UK.
Romana KazmiChaplaincy, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Rosa Mendizabal-EspinosaSocial Research Institute, University College London, UK.
Jonathan MontgomeryFaculty of Law, University College London, UK.
Katy SutcliffeSocial Research Institute, University College London, UK.
Hugo WellesleyGreat Ormond Street Children's Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/18/22/33604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This discussion paper considers how seldom recognised theories influence clinical ethics committees. A companion paper examined four major theories in social science: positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism, which can encourage legalistic ethics theories or practical living bioethics, which aims for theory-practice congruence. This paper develops the legalistic or living bioethics themes by relating the four theories to clinical ethics committee members' reported aims and practices and approaches towards efficiency, power, intimidation, justice, equality and children's interests and rights. Different approaches to framing ethical questions are also considered. Being aware of the four theories' influence can help when seeking to understand and possibly change clinical ethics committee routines. The paper is not a research report but is informed by a recent study in two London paediatric cardiac units. Forty-five practitioners and related experts were interviewed, including eight members of ethics committees, about the work of informing, preparing and supporting families during the extended process of consent to children's elective heart surgery. The mosaic of multidisciplinary teamwork is reported in a series of papers about each profession, including this one on bioethics and law and clinical ethics committees' influence on clinical practice. The qualitative social research was funded by the British Heart Foundation, in order that more may be known about the perioperative views and needs of all concerned. Questions included how disputes can be avoided, how high ethical standards and respectful cooperation between staff and families can be encouraged, and how minors' consent or refusal may be respected, with the support of clinical ethics committees.

Indexed as

care for specific groupsClinical ethicshealthcarehealthcare qualityhuman experimentationincompetentsinformed consentminorsprofessional ethics in medicine

Identifiers

PMID35967459
PMCPMC9361409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.