Faculty Bibliography

In the United States, when people die unexpectedly, they are usually not considered as organ donors because of the difficulty of keeping organs viable when death occurs outside the hospital, in "uncontrolled" circumstances. New protocols to permit donation in these cases have renewed the debate about how we decide whether a person has died- and whether the moral imperative to help those in need of transplant should affect the determination of death.

Unlike bioethics mediators who are employed by healthcare organizations as outside consultants, mediators who are embedded in an institution must be authorized to chronicle a clinical ethics consultation (CEC) or a mediation in a patient's medical chart. This is an important privilege, as the chart is a legal document. In this article I discuss this important part of a bioethics mediator's tool kit in my presentation of a case illustrating how bioethics mediation may proceed, and what this approach using both bioethics and mediation may add.

In "Surmounting Elusive Barriers: The Case for Bioethics Mediation," Bergman argues that professionals trained in bioethics, reluctant to acquire the skills of mediation, would better be replaced by a cadre of mediators with some bioethics knowledge, to which I respond, "yes ... but."

Evidence from Europe suggests establishing out-of-hospital, uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (UDCDD) protocols has potential to substantially increase organ availability. The study objective was to derive an out-of-hospital UDCDD protocol that would be acceptable to New York City (NYC) residents. Participatory action research and the SEED-SCALE process for social change guided protocol development in NYC from July 2007 to September 2010. A coalition of government officials, subject experts and communities necessary to achieve support was formed. Authorized NY State and NYC government officials and their legal representatives collaboratively investigated how the program could be implemented under current law and regulations. Community stakeholders (secular and religious organizations) were engaged in town hall style meetings. Ethnographic data (meeting minutes, field notes, quantitative surveys) were collected and posted in a collaborative internet environment. Data were analyzed using an iterative coding scheme to discern themes, theoretical constructs and a summary narrative to guide protocol development. A clinically appropriate, ethically sound UDCDD protocol for out-of-hospital settings has been derived. This program is likely to be accepted by NYC residents since the protocol was derived through partnership with government officials, subject experts and community participants

Autumn Fiester identifies an important element in clinical ethics consultation (CEC) that she labels, from the Greek, aporia, "state of perplexity," evidenced in CEC as ethical ambiguity. Fiester argues that the inherent difficulties of cases so characterized render them inappropriate for voting and more amenable to mediation and the search for consensus. This commentary supports Fiester's analysis and adds additional reasons for rejecting voting as a process for resolving disputes in CEC including: it distorts the analysis by empowering individual voters preferences and biases rather than focusing on the interests and wishes of the patient and family; it offers an insufficiently sensitive model for resolving the awesome, nuanced, conflicted, and ethically complex issues surrounding life and death; it marginalizes minority opinions that may have moral validity.

The Clinical Ethics Credentialing Project (CECP) was intiated in 2007 in response to the lack of uniform standards for both the training of clinical ethics consultants, and for evaluating their work as consultants. CECP participants, all practicing clinical ethics consultants, met monthly to apply a standard evaluation instrument, the "QI tool", to their consultation notes. This paper describes, from a qualitative perspective, how participants grappled with applying standards to their work. Although the process was marked by resistance and disagreement, it was also noteworthy for the sustained engagement by participants over the year of the project, and a high level of acceptance by its conclusion.