The Microethics and Macroethics of Hospital Abortion Committees

H. Rodman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/JCE199203317

1992-09-01

Abstract:The dramatic growth in the number of hospital ethics committees (HECs) over the last dozen years stems from official reactions to several highly publicized cases in which difficult questions emerged about when to forgo or to terminate life-sustaining treatment for comatose patients or for severely disabled infants. 1 The uneasy consensus that has emerged is that these committees serve three major functions: policy making, education, and case review or consultation. 2 HECs help health professionals to deal with difficult cases by setting policies and procedures, by educating hospital personnel, and by playing an advisory role to physicians, patients, and families facing life-and-death decisions. The literature on HECs has focused almost exclusively on committees established to deal with treatment decisions of seriously ill neonates or with neurologically damaged individuals whose lives are being sustained by technological means. Very little has been written about perinatal or abortion ethics committees (AECs). To understand better the AEC evaluated by John La Puma, Cheryl M. Darling, Carol B. Stocking, and Katy Schiller, 3 and the ethical implications of AECs generally, it is instructive to apply what has been learned about HECs to AECs. We could begin by asking a series of conventional questions about AECs, such as what they do, when they meet, how they deal with medical and ethical issues, the nature of interaction and influence within these committees, and the decisions or recommendations they make. These are microethical issues having to do with the day-to-day operation and activities of AECs as they deal with policy, education, and case review. In my judgment, however, the macroethical issue is more important--that is, the underlying role of these committees within the societal or institutional structure.