Networking Ethics: A Survey of Bioethics Networks Across the U.S.

Ethics networks have emerged over the last few decades as a mechanism for individuals and institutions over various regions, cities and states to converge on healthcare-related ethical issues. However, little is known about the development and nature of such networks. In an effort to fill the gap in the knowledge about such networks, a survey was conducted that evaluated the organizational structure, missions and functions, as well as the outcomes/products of ethics networks across the country. Eighteen established bioethics networks were identified via consensus of three search processes and were approached for participation. The participants completed a survey developed for the purposes of this study and distributed via SurveyMonkey. Responses were obtained from 10 of the 18 identified and approached networks regarding topic areas of: Network Composition and Catchment Areas; Network Funding and Expenses; Personnel; Services; and Missions and Accomplishments. Bioethics networks are designed primarily to bring ethics education and support to professionals and hospitals. They do so over specifically defined areas-states, regions, or communities-and each is concerned about how to stay financially healthy. At the same time, the networks work off different organizational models, either as stand-alone organizations or as entities within existing organizational structures.

Rural and non-rural differences in membership of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether bioethicists are distributed along a rural-to-urban continuum in a way that reflects potential need of those resources as determined by the general population, hospital facilities and hospital beds. METHODS: US members of a large, multidisciplinary professional society, the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH), the US population, hospital facilities and hospital beds were classified across a four-tier rural-to-urban continuum. The proportion of each group in rural settings was compared with that in urban settings, and odds ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Although 91% of ASBH members live or work in urban settings, only 66% of the US population did so. In contrast, 2% of ASBH members live or work in rural settings compared with 13% of the population. ASBH members were 10.7 times (95% CI 6.6 to 17.3) as likely to be represented in urban than in rural settings when compared with the general population, 25.6 times (95% CI 15.8 to 41.5) and 6.9 times (95% CI 4.3 to 11.1) as likely with regard to hospital facilities and hospital beds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using various comparisons it was found that ASBH members are under-represented in rural as compared with urban settings. Although not all bioethicists are ASBH members, these findings suggest that the availability of professional bioethical resources may be inadequate in rural America. The disparities that were found may have considerable effect on ethics scholarship, research, ethical committees and education, and adds to the argument that rural American communities are under-served.