I did not set out to exaggerate the issues when writing the
column on clinical ethics committees. I did not intend to
provoke or offend. I decided, after much soul-searching, to
point out what seems to me like an elephant in the room . I
say ‘after much soul-searching’ because I know that hundreds
of people devote a lot of time to CECs and that others have
spent years setting up, running and promoting CECs. I was
aware of the potential damage that the piece could cause to
some already fragile CECs, perhaps struggling to justify
their existence or with low morale among its troops, and to
the egos of those who have a more positive outlook on the
work of CECs. I regret if I have upset them. The article
was not an attack on any individual but on the sole
committee model itself, and if the model is failing in other
parts of the world, this only supports the point.
We were open about the limitations of our study in the
recent PMJ article, the main one being the relatively low
response rate of 43%. I do not think, however, that this
means we should ignore the results. We should stop
pretending all is well with CECs. Some, including Dr
Lucassen’s, are doubtless busy and successful. Many more
are struggling to get any active cases and may go for months
without a single case. Some are moribund and are, to be
blunt, a waste of everybody’s time. In the last week, I
have received many e-mails from individual CEC members,
understandably reluctant to post their comments publicly,
telling me that this needed to be said. One response is to
rubbish the article and to claim in a letter circulated to
CECs around the country that it demonstrates ‘lack of
understanding about the reality of some committees and of
providing ethics support in the UK’ but I doubt that such a
dismissive approach will help improve matters. If a
clinical ethics committee has no elephant, then wonderful.
They should share the secrets of their success with others.
If it has, then committee members should discuss ways to
push it out of the room. Ignoring it will no longer do.
Competing interests:
I am the author of the
article
Rapid Response:
Author's response
I did not set out to exaggerate the issues when writing the
column on clinical ethics committees. I did not intend to
provoke or offend. I decided, after much soul-searching, to
point out what seems to me like an elephant in the room . I
say ‘after much soul-searching’ because I know that hundreds
of people devote a lot of time to CECs and that others have
spent years setting up, running and promoting CECs. I was
aware of the potential damage that the piece could cause to
some already fragile CECs, perhaps struggling to justify
their existence or with low morale among its troops, and to
the egos of those who have a more positive outlook on the
work of CECs. I regret if I have upset them. The article
was not an attack on any individual but on the sole
committee model itself, and if the model is failing in other
parts of the world, this only supports the point.
We were open about the limitations of our study in the
recent PMJ article, the main one being the relatively low
response rate of 43%. I do not think, however, that this
means we should ignore the results. We should stop
pretending all is well with CECs. Some, including Dr
Lucassen’s, are doubtless busy and successful. Many more
are struggling to get any active cases and may go for months
without a single case. Some are moribund and are, to be
blunt, a waste of everybody’s time. In the last week, I
have received many e-mails from individual CEC members,
understandably reluctant to post their comments publicly,
telling me that this needed to be said. One response is to
rubbish the article and to claim in a letter circulated to
CECs around the country that it demonstrates ‘lack of
understanding about the reality of some committees and of
providing ethics support in the UK’ but I doubt that such a
dismissive approach will help improve matters. If a
clinical ethics committee has no elephant, then wonderful.
They should share the secrets of their success with others.
If it has, then committee members should discuss ways to
push it out of the room. Ignoring it will no longer do.
Competing interests:
I am the author of the
article
Competing interests: No competing interests