Commentary: Understanding the Limited Authority of Ethics Commissions

2014 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-112
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Androphy
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth A. Rosenson

Why do state legislators enact policies that conflict with their immediate self-interest? I address this question by assessing the impact of traditional and non-traditional policy determinants on ethics policy adoption. Specifically, I use event history analysis to identify the factors that explain the authorization of independent state legislative ethics commissions from 1973 to 1996. I find that the determinants of ethics policy are substantially, but not completely, different from those of other policies, with ethics policy fitting into an agenda-setting model better than many other policies. Scandals and the actions of other states played a prominent role in setting the agenda and facilitating the authorization of ethics commissions. The agenda-setting process transforms the immediate self-interest of legislators on this issue from one of concern about their own economic well being to one of concern about re-election. In addition, political culture, institutional power arrangements, legislative compensation, and party competition had small but discernible effects on the likelihood of a state establishing a legislative ethics commission.


Bioethics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ritva Halila
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Weishaupt

Due to unknown health risks, clinical drug trials on humans are subject to particularly rigid medical end ethical-legal standards. Their observance is monitored by the ethics commission in consultation with a higher federal authority. In light of the economic interest of pharmaceutical companies in the approval of the study, and of the limited number of experts, especially in specialist medical areas, conflicts of interest may occur in this context. Against this background, the author deals with the requirements of the exclusion of commissioners, as well as with the consequences of unauthorised involvement. Due to the regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 and the following 4th amendment, the legal situation with respect to conflicts of interest, as well as the licensing procedure, was altered. The author discusses, in particular, the new allocation of responsibilities between the ethics commissions and the higher federal authority.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 688-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Menezes Gonçalves de Brito ◽  
Darci de Oliveira Santa Rosa

Background: The research on nursing professionals in Clinical Ethics Committees and Nursing Ethics Commissions occurs in different parts of the world; however, little information on this subject is found in the literature. Objective: This study analyzed national and international publications in relation to the participation of nursing professionals in Clinical Ethics Committees. Research design: This was an integrative review of articles published in national and international journals between 1994 and 2016 which described the participation of nursing professionals in ethics commissions. Participants and research context: A total of 35 articles were selected. Discussion and conclusion for this article: The thematic categories were the need for time to discuss ethical issues; ethics committee to reduce the moral suffering of professionals; competencies required for participation; and barriers/difficulties and facilitators for implementation/ performance. It was concluded that professionals recognize the need for ethics committees to foster discussions. However, barriers hamper operation and fundamental competencies for participation. Communication of committee activities to professionals and educational activities may be major allies to improve the functioning of these committees.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document