When the Karen Ann Quinlan case emerged in the mid-1970s and the New Jersey Supreme Court made mention of the role that ethics committees might play in such cases, no one could have predicted at the time what the consequences of that observation might be. It took a while for momentum to build, but we are now seeing the flowering of what is an important movement in the field of bioethics: the interplay of ethics committees and broader societal issues.

Models of the doctor-patient relationship determine which value will predominate in the interaction of the parties. That value then significantly colors and even sometimers alters the nature of the ethical discussion. For example, if an institution predominately prides it-self on its competitive posture, ethical issues arising therein will necessarily be colored by entrepreurial rather than deontological ethics. By contrast, a physician who underlines patient decision making will tend to place autonomy first above all other principles, casting that relationship in a libertarian tone.

It should come as no surprise that we will get three different answers to the same question since we have three lawyers on the panel. The law is a matter of policy, and there is usually no single “right” answer to these questions. Each lawyer will come to a question from a very different perspective and bring a different approach to the answer.

The development and consultation experience of an ethics committee in an urban community hospital has been presented, and various approaches to case consultation have been considered. Our committee has concentrated on the clinical evaluation model. As expected, most consultations have centered on issues of withdrawing or limiting medical care. Most patients evaluated have been unable to clearly express their wishes concerning further treatments, highlighting the need for promoting advance directives. When resorting to substituted judgment, our committee has supported continued care in a majority of cases. Limitation of the consultation process to the attending physician has, in our experience, actually served to increase the credibility of the committee and has promoted acceptance of its recommendations. The committee's most useful function seems to be in assisting physicians and their patients in defining realistic goals and limitations of treatment. Within this context, the coming decade may find ethics committees concerned less with promoting the autonomous wishes of individual patients than with defining the limits of that autonomy against the competing demands of the larger society. Such a shift be approached with caution.

Hospital ehtics committees are often consulted when cmopeting patient interests blur an otherwise clear course of medical treatment. Nowhere is the potential for competing interests greater than in the field of abosterics, wherer obstetricians have traditionally viewed themselves as having two patients: the pregnant woman and the fetus.

Medical ethics committees are increasingly called on to assist doctors, patients, and families in resolving difficult ethics issues. Although committees are becoming more sophisticated in the substance of medical ethics, little attention has been given to the processes these committees use to facilitate decision-making. In 1990, the National Institute for Dispute Resolution in Washington, D.C., provided a planning grant from its Innovation Fund to the Institute of Public Law of the University of New Mexico School of Law to look at what ethics committees can learn from facilitation and mediation techniques. The study's thesis was that, if adapted for use by medical ethics committees, facilitation and mediation techniques can be helpful to those bodies in case review consultations and in other internal committee processes. This article reports on that project.

The Patient Self-Determination Act is a fact. Finally, respect for patient autonomy has been guaranteed. At first sight, there seems little reason to object to any measure that intends to increase the autonomy of the patient. Too long, one may argue, physicians have behaved paternalistically; too often, they have been advised to change this habit. If the profession of medicine is unwilling or simply unable to grant the patient the decision-making power that is her due, the law has to step in. One may add, this law in no way hinders professional autonomy; by requiring a hospital official to provide the patient with information about advance directive, the law actually reduces the work load of the physician, who is already overburdened.

The word “euthanasia” is hopelessly overloaded with emotional connotations. It means so many things to many different people. The implications of euthanasia associated with the Second World War have often rendered the term unsuitable for discussions of a rational manner. As far as I am concerned, what happened in Germany under Hitler had nothing to do with the classic meaning of a gentle and easy death but was rather simply a policy of mass murder.