ArticleAsian bioethics review2024
The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience.
Article in Asian bioethics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perception of the Ethical Climate Among Hospital Employees in a Public Healthcare System: A Qualitative Study at the University Hospital of Split, Croatia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hospital ethics committees: responsibilities, competencies and challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are relatively new in non-Western countries. This article examines the effectiveness of a HEC established in Bursa/Turkey over ten years, aiming to contribute insights for the wider implementation and enhancement of HECs. The evaluative methodology combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess its effectiveness. Patients are the primary users of the HEC, although applications from physicians, hospital managers, and the Patient Rights Board are also observed. Surgical specialities account for the majority of applications, particularly from obstetrics and gynecology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. The study identifies the types of applications, with malpractice claims, ethical inquiries, and access-related complaints being the most common. Despite many healthcare professionals encountering ethical dilemmas, the HEC was underutilized for consultations due to factors such as low awareness, perceived autonomy challenges, and skepticism regarding its efficacy. Additionally, the study describes how HEC recommendations contribute to policy development, addressing organizational issues and promoting ethical practices. The decision-making process within the HEC was also scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity of a structured methodology for moral deliberation. Concerns are raised about committee members lacking specific training in ethical analysis, potentially resulting in biases and suboptimal decisions. Contextual factors, including institutional culture and economic considerations, are also recognized for their influence on decision-making. This analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of HECs and the challenges they face in achieving effectiveness. It underscores the need for standardized measures, improved training for committee members, and contextual awareness to enhance the impact and functionality of HECs in healthcare institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.