Abstract
Abstract
Background
In healthcare practice, care providers are confronted with decisions they have to make, directly affecting patients and inevitably harmful. These decisions are tragic by nature. This study investigates the role of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in dealing with tragic situations. In MCD, caregivers reflect on real-life dilemmas, involving a choice between two ethical claims, both resulting in moral damage and harm. One element of the reflection process is making explicit the harm involved in the choice. How harmful are our decisions? We investigated how facilitators of MCD experience the importance of addressing harm in MCD and what participants learn from reflecting on harm.
Methods
The study was qualitative, focusing on the views and experiences of the facilitators of MCD. Semi-structured interviews (N = 12) were conducted with facilitators of MCD. The research focuses on the subjective experiences of facilitators. Grounded Theory was used for analysis.
Results
The results show two main categories. The first concerns the awareness of tragedy. Within this category, five themes were discerned: making explicit that there is no solution, visualizing consequences, uncovering pain, focusing on emotion, and exploring perspectives on harm. The second category concerns the support for healthcare professionals in dealing with the tragedy of the choices they face. In this category, five themes came forward: acknowledging, offering comfort, managing harm, consideration through dialogue and repairing harm.
Conclusion
Our study shows that addressing harm in MCD in tragic situations provides an important moral learning opportunity for participants. By formulating and becoming aware of harm, MCD aids healthcare professionals in the task they are faced with, namely making difficult and painful choices. MCD helps healthcare professionals to repair moral damage, making clear at the same time that harm cannot be undone.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health (social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference73 articles.
1. Dauwerse L. Moving ethics: State of the art of clinical ethics support in the Netherlands. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: BOXPress; 2014. p. 43–63.
2. Molewijk ACT, Abma M, Widdershoven G, Stolper M. Teaching ethics in the clinic: the theory and practice of moral case deliberation. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(2):120–4.
3. Weidema F, Molewijk B, Kamsteeg F, Widdershoven G. Aims and harvest of moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics. 2013;20(6):617–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733012473773.
4. Stolper M, Van der Dam S, Widdershoven G, Molewijk B. Clinical ethics in the Netherlands: moral case deliberation in health care organizations. In: clinical ethics consultation. Theories and methods, implementation, evaluation, Schildmann J ed., Gordon J.-S, Vollmann J. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate; 2010.
5. Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. BMC Med Ethics. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0125-1.
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献