Cynda Rushton
Oxford University Press
Originally posted October 12, 2018
Clinicians are constantly confronted with ethical questions. Recent examples of healthcare workers caught up in high-profile best-interest cases are on the rise, but decisions regarding the allocation of the clinician’s time and skills, or scare resources such as organs and medication, are everyday occurrences. The increasing pressure of “doing more with less” is one that can take its toll.
Dr Cynda Rushton is a professor of clinical ethics, and a proponent of ‘moral resilience’ as a pathway through which clinicians can lessen their experience of moral distress, and navigate the contentious issues they may face with a greater sense of integrity. In the video series below, she provides the guiding principles of moral resilience, and explores how they can be put into practice.
The videos are here.
Showing posts with label Clinical Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinical Ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
There’s Argument, and there’s Disputation
by Iain Brassington
British Medical Journal Blogs
Originally posted June 6, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Basically, the problem is this: that the model for debating contests is, presumably, based around the idea that debate is an effective way to whittle bad ideas away from good; if each participant is a doughty falsificationist, and equally able in debate as his opponent, then at the end of a process of debate, we’ll be closer to the truth of the matter than we were at the start. So far, so good. But there’s a handful of fairly obvious problems with that model. First, that doesn’t lend itself to the idea that there is a winner and a loser in any particular debate. Second, a shoddy argument presented by a good speaker might win a competitive debate over a good argument presented by a diffident speaker. We might hope that a competent judge would account for that, but it’d be better if there wasn’t any need to solve what looks to be a structural problem to begin with. Third – which is related, but probably more importantly when it comes to ethics – someone with a good understanding of the moral arguments and who is a decent orator might stand a fair chance of winning an argument; but it doesn’t follow that a good orator who’s won an argument has any particular understanding of the moral arguments. Debating contests reward people for being good at debate; but that’s presumably not the true end of ethics education. Fourth, this kind of strategy is possibly OK in politics, in which the point of oratory is to persuade people to adopt a certain cause; and so debating competitions might provide training for that. (I suspect that that’s something like the rationale behind things like the IofI’s competition in schools: it’s directed at developing a certain set of skills, with one eye on a vivacious public debate. Whatever my private suspicions of the IofI generally, that doesn’t seem like a bad idea.) But ethical debate is qualitatively different. It isn’t really about winning converts. Or, at least: one might hope that a convincing argument would have moral gravity and attract agreement, but the mood of the thing is different.
The article is here.
British Medical Journal Blogs
Originally posted June 6, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Basically, the problem is this: that the model for debating contests is, presumably, based around the idea that debate is an effective way to whittle bad ideas away from good; if each participant is a doughty falsificationist, and equally able in debate as his opponent, then at the end of a process of debate, we’ll be closer to the truth of the matter than we were at the start. So far, so good. But there’s a handful of fairly obvious problems with that model. First, that doesn’t lend itself to the idea that there is a winner and a loser in any particular debate. Second, a shoddy argument presented by a good speaker might win a competitive debate over a good argument presented by a diffident speaker. We might hope that a competent judge would account for that, but it’d be better if there wasn’t any need to solve what looks to be a structural problem to begin with. Third – which is related, but probably more importantly when it comes to ethics – someone with a good understanding of the moral arguments and who is a decent orator might stand a fair chance of winning an argument; but it doesn’t follow that a good orator who’s won an argument has any particular understanding of the moral arguments. Debating contests reward people for being good at debate; but that’s presumably not the true end of ethics education. Fourth, this kind of strategy is possibly OK in politics, in which the point of oratory is to persuade people to adopt a certain cause; and so debating competitions might provide training for that. (I suspect that that’s something like the rationale behind things like the IofI’s competition in schools: it’s directed at developing a certain set of skills, with one eye on a vivacious public debate. Whatever my private suspicions of the IofI generally, that doesn’t seem like a bad idea.) But ethical debate is qualitatively different. It isn’t really about winning converts. Or, at least: one might hope that a convincing argument would have moral gravity and attract agreement, but the mood of the thing is different.
The article is here.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
“Should I feel badly that I acted unethically?”
By Craig Klugman
bioethics.net
Originally posted May 29, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
At the base of this whole scenario is the concept that medicine is a business and businesses need to know what their competitors are doing. Unethical businesses try to increase market share not by producing a better product or service, but by undermining their competition. Aside from the medical ethics issues in this case, there is a very basic business ethics concern: Do not harm another to further your own interest. One of the most important professional values in medicine is altruism—that your choices and behaviors are for the benefit of another, not yourself. Roger loses sight of that when he only sees a problem when he feels personally threatened. Altruism is a basic component of a profession. Medicine is a profession. Business is not. Thus, in this situation the values of medicine and the values of business collide.
The corporatization of medicine as a center of profit has lost sight of the goal, which is to help people in need. That a non-medical professional would open a clinic “as a side business” is disturbing. Medicine should not be a way for one to achieve wealth, but rather be a way to be a servant to the community. Business ethics should always come second to medical ethics in a healing environment.
The entire article is here.
bioethics.net
Originally posted May 29, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
At the base of this whole scenario is the concept that medicine is a business and businesses need to know what their competitors are doing. Unethical businesses try to increase market share not by producing a better product or service, but by undermining their competition. Aside from the medical ethics issues in this case, there is a very basic business ethics concern: Do not harm another to further your own interest. One of the most important professional values in medicine is altruism—that your choices and behaviors are for the benefit of another, not yourself. Roger loses sight of that when he only sees a problem when he feels personally threatened. Altruism is a basic component of a profession. Medicine is a profession. Business is not. Thus, in this situation the values of medicine and the values of business collide.
The corporatization of medicine as a center of profit has lost sight of the goal, which is to help people in need. That a non-medical professional would open a clinic “as a side business” is disturbing. Medicine should not be a way for one to achieve wealth, but rather be a way to be a servant to the community. Business ethics should always come second to medical ethics in a healing environment.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)