Patients, families, and health care providers have a right to expect that ethics consultants can deal competently with the complex issues that they are asked to address. The Society for Health and Human Values-Society for Bioethics Consultation Task Force on Standards for Bioethics Consultation explored core competencies and related issues in ethics consultation. This position paper summarizes the content of the resulting Task Force Report, which included nine general conclusions: 1) U.S. societal context makes "ethics facilitation" an appropriate approach to ethics consultation; 2) ethics facilitation requires certain core competencies; 3) core competencies can be acquired in various ways; 4) individual consultants, teams, or committees should have the core competencies for ethics consultation; 5) consult services should have policies that address access, patient notification, documentation, and case review; 6) abuse of power and conflicts of interest must be avoided; 7) ethics consultation must have institutional support; 8) evaluation of process, outcomes, and competencies is needed; and 9) certification of individuals and accreditation of programs are rejected.

No abstract

Many families of seriously ill patients experience severe caregiving and financial burdens. Families of younger, poorer, and more functionally dependent patients are most likely to report loss of most or all of the family's savings.

Although "brain death" and the dead donor rule—i.e., patients must not be killed by organ retrieval—have been clinically and legally accepted in the U.S. as prerequisites to organ removal, there is little data about public attitudes and beliefs concerning these matters. To examine the public attitudes and beliefs about the determination of death and its relationship to organ transplantation, 1351 Ohio residents >=18 years were randomly selected and surveyed using random digit dialing (RDD) sample frames. The RDD telephone survey was conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviews. The survey instrument was developed from information provided by 12 focus groups and a pilot study of the questionnaire. Three scenarios based on hypothetical patients were presented: "brain dead," in a coma, or in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Respondents provided personal assessments of whether the patient in each scenario was dead and their willingness to donate that patient's organs in these circumstances. More than 98 percent of respondents had heard of the term "brain death," but only one-third (33.7%) believed that someone who was "brain dead" was legally dead. The majority of respondents (86.2%) identified the "brain-dead" patient in the first scenario as dead, 57.2 percent identified the patient in a coma as dead (Scenario 2), and 34.1 percent identified the patient in a PVS as dead (Scenario 3). Nearly one-third (33.5%) were willing to donate the organs of patients they classified as alive for at least one scenario, in seeming violation of the dead donor rule. Most respondents were not willing to violate the dead donor rule, although a substantial minority was. However, the majority of respondents were unaware, misinformed, or held beliefs that were not congruent with current definitions of "brain death." This study highlights the need for more public dialogue and education about "brain death" and organ donation.

No abstract