Table 1 Seven requirements for legitimacy of clinical decisions with priority-setting consequences. From Bærøe [10]
From: Can clinical ethics committees be legitimate actors in bedside rationing?
Requirement | Explanation (conditions supported in parentheses) | |
|---|---|---|
1 | Self-reflection | Explicit reflection on applicable goals of healthcare and principles for distribution (supports condition (a)) |
2 | Search for all relevant arguments | Identification of context- and patient-related reasons to justify deviation from guideline (b) |
3 | Impartiality | Recognition of impartiality (a-b) |
4 | Political consequences | Recognition of the political consequences of the claims put forward (c) |
5 | Prioritised services | A stable perception/justification of what kind of services the healthcare service should prioritise (c) |
6 | Reasonable justification | Justification of claims on healthcare so that they would be acceptable to colleagues sharing this aim of justification (d) |
7 | Professional self-regulation | Institutionalisation of requirements 1–6 supports all four conditions (a-d) and makes the performers accountable towards health authorities and stakeholders |