Ethics committees are time-tested and trusted institutions that serve as the arbiters of morality in healthcare settings. However, there are concerns that many such boards are biased, primarily due to the prevalence of medical workers among their membership. As a result, they do not remain impartial and focus on the interests of the care providers over those of the patients. An increased representation of people who represent the population may help resolve the issue. This essay argues that patient advocates and community members should be included on ethics committees.
We will write a custom Essay on Ethics Committees Membership in Healthcare specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Ethics committees resolve disputes between medical workers and patients from an impartial position. As such, an over-representation of physicians and nurses does not allow it to perform the role. Furthermore, the presence of patient advocates alone is insufficient, as, according to Geppert and Sheldon (2016), they may feel pressured by resentment from colleagues. As such, community members should be present on the panel. However, they will usually lack the medical and ethical expertise necessary to make fully informed decisions. Patient advocates will compensate for these shortcomings by providing explanations and serving as mediators for the two sides.
Community members should be present on ethics committees to represent their interests and assure the impartiality of the proceedings. They are not bound by the same restrictions and loyalties as medical workers and can defend their positions freely. However, people without education or experience in the field may struggle to offer informed and adequate opinions. They will have to undergo training in ethics, but medical expertise cannot be learned quickly and easily. The presence of patient advocates will help alleviate the concern by providing a source of unbiased medical information.
Statement of Cash Flows Preparation
The statement of cash flows describes the movement of money throughout the company, illustrating sources of incoming finances and various expenses. It is separate from the income statement because it lists costs and is, therefore, less suitable for evaluating the financial performance of the company. Nevertheless, it is essential for accounting, as the information in it allows one to judge whether the company is making a profit and how stable it is financially. The availability of data on the spendings of the company enables a high degree of transparency, which is vital to investors and creditors.
There are two methods of presenting information in the operating section of the statement, known as the direct and indirect approaches. According to Klammer (2017), the former requires the company to “provide a reconciliation of net income to cash flows from operating activities” (p. 1-14). As a result, the statement becomes more detailed and useful to the reader. The indirect method makes companies “remove from net income the effects of all deferrals of cash receipts and payments and all accruals of cash receipts and payments” (Klammer, 2017, p. 1-14). They do not need to provide details, and therefore, this approach is more popular.
The direct method is more difficult to use due to the increased level of detail, but the same quality helps outside readers gain an insight into the company’s operations. Its counterpart, the indirect approach, lets entities provide the same information in a generalized form. It is easier for the company to do so, but it prevents readers from noticing issues such as poor money management. The indirect method is currently more popular due to its simplicity, but pressure from investors and legislative entities may make the direct method the standard.
Klammer, T. (2017). Statement of cash flows: Preparation, presentation, and use. Durham, NC: Association of International Certified Professional Accountants.
Geppert, C. M. A., & Shelton, W. (2016). Health care ethics committees as mediators of social values and the culture of medicine. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18(5), 534-539.