A Qualitative Research Survey on Cardiologist’s Ethical Stance in Cases of Moral Dilemmas in Cardiology Clinics

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Banu Buruk, Perihan Elif Ekmekci, Aksüyek Savaş Çelebi, Begüm Güneş
{"title":"A Qualitative Research Survey on Cardiologist’s Ethical Stance in Cases of Moral Dilemmas in Cardiology Clinics","authors":"Banu Buruk, Perihan Elif Ekmekci, Aksüyek Savaş Çelebi, Begüm Güneş","doi":"10.1007/s10728-023-00476-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study sought to determine cardiologists’ degrees of ethical awareness and preferred courses of action for ethical dilemmas frequently encountered in clinical settings. For this evaluation, an online survey was created and sent to cardiologists affiliated with various academic posts in Ankara, Turkey. The survey included ten cases with various ethical considerations selected from our book, “Clinic Ethics with Cases from Cardiology.” Four possible action choices were defined for each case. Participants were asked to choose one or more of these preferences. In addition, a fictional change was made in each case’s context without changing the original ethical issue, and participants were asked whether an attitude different from the first chosen one was preferred. The participation ratio was 49/185 (26%), consent ratio 47/185 (25,4%), and completion ratio 44/185 (23,7%). Nine of the ten scenario changes did not change participants’ preferred action. For most questions, action preferences were concentrated between the two options. Although legal regulations did not reduce ethical dilemmas, they clarified physicians’ action preferences. Similarly, as an obscure moral issue gained prominence, physicians were forced to draw clearer lines in their actions. External factors such as healthcare emergencies can change physicians’ ethical dilemma-solving attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-023-00476-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study sought to determine cardiologists’ degrees of ethical awareness and preferred courses of action for ethical dilemmas frequently encountered in clinical settings. For this evaluation, an online survey was created and sent to cardiologists affiliated with various academic posts in Ankara, Turkey. The survey included ten cases with various ethical considerations selected from our book, “Clinic Ethics with Cases from Cardiology.” Four possible action choices were defined for each case. Participants were asked to choose one or more of these preferences. In addition, a fictional change was made in each case’s context without changing the original ethical issue, and participants were asked whether an attitude different from the first chosen one was preferred. The participation ratio was 49/185 (26%), consent ratio 47/185 (25,4%), and completion ratio 44/185 (23,7%). Nine of the ten scenario changes did not change participants’ preferred action. For most questions, action preferences were concentrated between the two options. Although legal regulations did not reduce ethical dilemmas, they clarified physicians’ action preferences. Similarly, as an obscure moral issue gained prominence, physicians were forced to draw clearer lines in their actions. External factors such as healthcare emergencies can change physicians’ ethical dilemma-solving attitudes.

关于心脏病医生在心脏病诊所道德困境中的伦理立场的定性研究调查
本研究旨在确定心脏病专家对伦理的认识程度,以及他们对临床中经常遇到的伦理困境的首选处理方案。为进行评估,我们制作了一份在线调查问卷,并发送给土耳其安卡拉不同学术岗位的心脏病专家。调查内容包括从我们的著作《心脏病学临床伦理案例》中选取的十个具有各种伦理考虑因素的案例。每个案例都有四种可能的行动选择。要求参与者选择其中一个或多个。此外,在不改变原有伦理问题的情况下,对每个案例的背景进行了虚构的改变,并询问参与者是否更倾向于与第一种选择不同的态度。参与比例为 49/185(26%),同意比例为 47/185(25.4%),完成比例为 44/185(23.7%)。在 10 个情景变化中,有 9 个没有改变参与者的首选行动。对于大多数问题,行动偏好集中在两个选项之间。虽然法律规定并没有减少道德困境,但却明确了医生的行动偏好。同样,当一个模糊的道德问题变得突出时,医生也不得不在行动中划出更清晰的界限。医疗紧急情况等外部因素会改变医生解决道德困境的态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信