Whilst we welcome the ‘ethics man’s’ proposed attempt to encourage
clinicians to consider a range of ethical issues as part of routine
practice (7th March 2009), we also remain ‘sceptics’. We acknowledge the
aim of the checklist is to encourage discussion around pertinent ethical
issues related to the case; however, our experience is that checklists
often encourage a tick-box mentality rather than discussion and that this
sort of approach may be suited to (supposed) avoidance of complaints or
legal action rather than encouraging critical engagement with the ethical
issues involved. For example, check lists may engender a sense that if
you have gone through the list you have covered all the possible ethical
concerns and that as long as you have ticked or crossed a box this is
evidence of having done so. We would argue that this is unlikely to be the
case. We have seen something similar happen with research ethics approval
where researchers appear to see ethics as something they need ‘to get’
rather than something they need to engage with. Our worry is that the
checklist will just be seen as another piece of paper to be completed or
just another procedure to be followed, which may undermine the very
purpose of the activity.
Rapid Response:
need to 'get ethics'
Whilst we welcome the ‘ethics man’s’ proposed attempt to encourage
clinicians to consider a range of ethical issues as part of routine
practice (7th March 2009), we also remain ‘sceptics’. We acknowledge the
aim of the checklist is to encourage discussion around pertinent ethical
issues related to the case; however, our experience is that checklists
often encourage a tick-box mentality rather than discussion and that this
sort of approach may be suited to (supposed) avoidance of complaints or
legal action rather than encouraging critical engagement with the ethical
issues involved. For example, check lists may engender a sense that if
you have gone through the list you have covered all the possible ethical
concerns and that as long as you have ticked or crossed a box this is
evidence of having done so. We would argue that this is unlikely to be the
case. We have seen something similar happen with research ethics approval
where researchers appear to see ethics as something they need ‘to get’
rather than something they need to engage with. Our worry is that the
checklist will just be seen as another piece of paper to be completed or
just another procedure to be followed, which may undermine the very
purpose of the activity.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests