Can care ethics help healthcare systems address their environmental harms? Findings from focus groups with members of the UK public

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gabrielle Samuel , Miranda MacFarlane , Sarah Briggs
{"title":"Can care ethics help healthcare systems address their environmental harms? Findings from focus groups with members of the UK public","authors":"Gabrielle Samuel ,&nbsp;Miranda MacFarlane ,&nbsp;Sarah Briggs","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Bioethics scholars have become increasingly interested in moral questions associated with healthcare's environmental harms. Much of this scholarship has remained in the theoretical space, where ethical reasoning is underpinned by certain obligations and the implementation of top-down principles. Drawing on twelve focus groups with members of the UK public, this paper aims to bring a sociological ethics of care approach to these discussions. In fulfilling this aim, we highlight how moral decision-making occurs in the context of interrelationships with others, and not simply according to top-down principles. We show how, in line with an ethics of care approach, participants prioritised caring needs based on those in close relational proximity, meaning that emphasis was placed primarily on themselves and their loved ones, followed by other humans and the NHS, and finally the environment. At the same time, we contribute to the ethics of care scholarship by showing how such relation-based hierarchical caring was affected by various socio-cultural and political factors–what we have called ‘<em>contextual caring’</em>. We note four factors: access to healthcare, capability of care work, increasing understanding of the relationship between humans and the environment, and societal norms of environmental citizenship. We stress the importance of considering these socio-cultural and political factors in any examination of how relation-based hierarchical care occurs in practice. We reflect on the implications of our focus group findings for policy measures towards addressing the UK NHS's environmental harms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"376 ","pages":"Article 118113"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625004435","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bioethics scholars have become increasingly interested in moral questions associated with healthcare's environmental harms. Much of this scholarship has remained in the theoretical space, where ethical reasoning is underpinned by certain obligations and the implementation of top-down principles. Drawing on twelve focus groups with members of the UK public, this paper aims to bring a sociological ethics of care approach to these discussions. In fulfilling this aim, we highlight how moral decision-making occurs in the context of interrelationships with others, and not simply according to top-down principles. We show how, in line with an ethics of care approach, participants prioritised caring needs based on those in close relational proximity, meaning that emphasis was placed primarily on themselves and their loved ones, followed by other humans and the NHS, and finally the environment. At the same time, we contribute to the ethics of care scholarship by showing how such relation-based hierarchical caring was affected by various socio-cultural and political factors–what we have called ‘contextual caring’. We note four factors: access to healthcare, capability of care work, increasing understanding of the relationship between humans and the environment, and societal norms of environmental citizenship. We stress the importance of considering these socio-cultural and political factors in any examination of how relation-based hierarchical care occurs in practice. We reflect on the implications of our focus group findings for policy measures towards addressing the UK NHS's environmental harms.
护理伦理能否帮助医疗保健系统解决其环境危害?来自英国公众焦点小组的调查结果
生物伦理学学者对与医疗保健环境危害相关的道德问题越来越感兴趣。这种学术研究的大部分仍然停留在理论领域,其中伦理推理是由某些义务和自上而下原则的实施所支撑的。利用12个焦点小组与英国公众的成员,这篇论文的目的是把护理方法的社会学伦理这些讨论。为了实现这一目标,我们强调道德决策是如何在与他人的相互关系的背景下发生的,而不仅仅是根据自上而下的原则。我们展示了如何根据护理方法的伦理,参与者根据亲密关系的接近程度优先考虑护理需求,这意味着重点主要放在自己和亲人身上,其次是其他人和NHS,最后是环境。与此同时,我们通过展示这种基于关系的分层关怀如何受到各种社会文化和政治因素的影响——我们称之为“情境关怀”,为关怀学术的伦理做出了贡献。我们注意到四个因素:获得医疗保健、护理工作的能力、对人与环境之间关系的日益了解,以及环境公民的社会规范。我们强调考虑这些社会文化和政治因素的重要性在任何检查如何基于关系的分级护理发生在实践中。我们反思了焦点小组调查结果对解决英国国民健康服务体系环境危害的政策措施的影响。
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
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
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