Professional Ethics for System Developers in Health Care

Abstract

Medical informaticians are multidisciplinary professionals responsible for developing complex technical systems. The aim of this study was to investigate how a code of ethics can help medical informaticians in avoiding design failures. An exploratory case study was performed to identify factors related to failure during system development. The literature on professional ethics was reviewed to derive a preliminary code of ethics. The case study showed that collaboration across individual and professional values is required to avoid failure during system development in health care. Having either the employer or the health care providers in focus for moral judgments may be misleading and cause confusion. The preliminary code emphasizes socialization, education and cooperation rather than enforced compliance. As a code is a distillation of experiences, its major benefit to medical informaticians should be its clarification of the profession’s position in society.

Keywords

Medical Informatics - Professional Ethics - Case Study Method - Design Accidents

• References

• 1 Oz E. When professional standards are lax: the CONFIRM failure and its lessons. CACM 1994; 37: 29-36.
• 2 Halper M. IS cover-up charged in system kill. Computerworld 1992; 26: 1.
• 3 Pearson JM, Crosby L, Shim JP. Measuring the importance of ethical behavior criteria. CACM 1997; 40: 94-100.
• 4 Johnson D. Computer Ethics (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall; 1993
• 5 Miller RA, Schaffer KF, Meisel A. Ethical and legal issues related to the use of computers in clinical medicine. Ann Int Med 1985; 102: 529-36.
• 6 Gritzalis D, Tomaras A, Katsikas S, Keklikoglou J. Medical data protection: a proposal for a deontology code (HIDEC, Health Informaticians’ Deontology Code). J Med Sys 1990; 14: 375-86.
• 7 Freidson E. Profession of Medicine . New York: Harper & Row Publishers; 1970
• 8 Yin RK. Case study research. Design and Methods. Second Edition. London: Sage Publ; 1994
• 9 Reason J. Understanding adverse events: human factors. In: Vincent C. ed. Clinical Risk Management . London: BMJ Publ; 1995: 31-54.
• 10 Moynihan T. How experienced project managers assess risk. Software 1997; 14: 35-42.
• 11 Trochim W. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Eval Progr Planning 1989; 12: 355-66.
• 12 Bommer M, Gratto C, Gravander J, Tuttle M. A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision-making. J Bus Ethics 1987; 6: 265-80.
• 13 Pellegrino ED. Humanism and the Physician . Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press; 1979
• 14 Abrams N, Buckner MD. (eds.). Medical Ethics . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1984
• 15 Mason RO. Four ethical principles for the information age. MIS Quart 1986; 10: 5-12.
• 16 Anderson R. ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. CACM 1992; 35: 94-9.
• 17 Berleur J, Brunnstein K. eds. Ethics of Computing. Codes, Spaces for Discussion and Law . London: Chapman and Hall; 1996
• 18 Frankel MS. Professional codes: why, how and with what impact?. J Bus Ethics 1989; 8: 109-16.
• 19 Parnas DL. SDI: a violation of professional responsibility. Abacus 1987; 4: 46-52.
• 20 Alpern KD. Engineers as moral heroes. In: Weil V. ed. Beyond Whistle-blowing: Defining Engineers’ Responsibilities . Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology; 1983: 40-51.
• 21 Miller RA, Gardner RM. Recommendations for responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. JAMIA 1997; 4: 442-57.
• 22 Laudon KC. Ethical concepts and information technology. CACM 1995; 38: 33-9.