Commentary—A Military Health Care Ethics Framework

Author:

Beardmore Charlie1ORCID,Bricknell Martin C M1ORCID,Kelly Janet23ORCID,Lough Fred4

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Conflict & Health Research, King’s College London , London WC2R 2LS, UK

2. Department of Midwifery and Child Health, University of Hull , Hull HU6 7RX, UK

3. Medical Operational Support Group , York YO32 5SW, UK

4. Director, Griffith Institute, Director, DoD Medical Ethics Center (DMEC), Uniformed Services University (USU) , Bethesda, MD 20814-4799, USA

Abstract

ABSTRACT Ethical practice within military health care is a significant topic of professional and academic debate. The term “military health care ethics” enfranchises the entire health care team. Military health care professionals are subject to tension between their duties as military personnel, and their ethical duties as health care professionals, so-called “Dual Loyalty.” Some military health care practitioners have suffered moral injury because of the psychological stress associated with ethical challenges on military operations. It is important to define military health care ethics and also to consider how it should be taught. The essence of ethical practice is ethical decision-making. It has become self-evident from our experience of teaching military health care ethics that a simple and agreed framework for analyzing an ethical problem is required. This paper describes the development of the King’s Military Healthcare Ethics Framework in support of a military health care ethics policy on behalf of the NATO Military Healthcare Working Group. There is logic to using a stepped approach to analyze an ethical problem in military health care. These steps are: “Identify” the problem, “Analyze” the problem including consideration of perspectives, “Fuse” the analysis, and “Decide”. Step 1—Identify—is intended to orientate the decision-making group, and to articulate the problem specifically and clearly in order to determine the exact ethical issue and the secondary issues that arise. Step 2—Analyse—considers the problem from 4 perspectives: patient, clinical, legal, and societal/military. These reflect the breadth of perspectives that impact on health care practice within a military context. Step 3—Fuse—is the culminating step. The conclusions from the analysis of perspectives should be summarized and key references cited. This will determine the exact decision(s) to be made. Step 4—Decide—clearly articulates the decision made and provides the record of the key reasons for making that decision. This may include areas of enduring uncertainly and any planned review of the decision. The King’s Military Healthcare Ethics Analytical Framework has been evaluated for content validity through iterative discussion at 4 meetings of the NATO MHCWG and a specific workshop on military health care ethics over 2022/2023. It is included within the draft NATO Standardization Agreement on Military Healthcare Ethics.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference15 articles.

1. Thematic analysis of military medical ethics publications from 2000 to 2020—a bibliometric approach;Bailey;Mil Med,2022

2. Military healthcare ethics: making it relevant to the whole military care team;Lin;Mil Med,2023

3. Dual loyalty/military medicine;Wilson;World Med J,2022

4. An overview to military medical ethics;Bricknell;J Mil Veteran Health,2022

5. Military physicians’ ethical experience and professional identity: a Canadian perspective;Rochon;BMJ Mil Health,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3