10 Limits to Forgiveness in Health Care.

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Stephen Buetow
{"title":"10 Limits to Forgiveness in Health Care.","authors":"Stephen Buetow","doi":"10.1007/s10728-025-00518-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Compliance and regulatory bodies often encourage health care providers' disclosure of and apologies for wrongdoing. Patients may perceive that forgiveness is expected and feel pressure to grant it. However, forgiveness carries consequences, which can bring limits to forgiveness. Understanding these limits is crucial for understanding when forgiveness can either heal or add to trauma. This paper explores 10 context-dependent limits to forgiveness across four categories. The first category outlines conceptual limits: not all harm requires forgiveness, some evil acts may be beyond human forgiveness, and blame can be incompatible with forgiveness. Secondly, moral and ethical limits result from how accountability strains forgiveness, how moral absolutism can hinder it, and how proxy forgiveness may lack moral legitimacy. The third category identifies relational and social limits. Forced reconciliation can undermine forgiveness. System negligence diffuses culpability, hindering individual forgiveness, and requires prioritizing the victim's healing and benefit despite the diluted accountability. Finally, the fourth category highlights temporal and process-related limits. It emphasizes that ongoing or unaddressed harm can obstruct forgiveness, while variations in healing trajectories may delay or complicate it. Updating current understanding, this framework adds insight into when forgiveness may be inappropriate. It offers providers ethical guidance in navigating this terrain through a person-centred approach balancing empathy and accountability. The framework aims to facilitate healing for the patient and provider, regardless of whether forgiveness occurs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","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/s10728-025-00518-1","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

Compliance and regulatory bodies often encourage health care providers' disclosure of and apologies for wrongdoing. Patients may perceive that forgiveness is expected and feel pressure to grant it. However, forgiveness carries consequences, which can bring limits to forgiveness. Understanding these limits is crucial for understanding when forgiveness can either heal or add to trauma. This paper explores 10 context-dependent limits to forgiveness across four categories. The first category outlines conceptual limits: not all harm requires forgiveness, some evil acts may be beyond human forgiveness, and blame can be incompatible with forgiveness. Secondly, moral and ethical limits result from how accountability strains forgiveness, how moral absolutism can hinder it, and how proxy forgiveness may lack moral legitimacy. The third category identifies relational and social limits. Forced reconciliation can undermine forgiveness. System negligence diffuses culpability, hindering individual forgiveness, and requires prioritizing the victim's healing and benefit despite the diluted accountability. Finally, the fourth category highlights temporal and process-related limits. It emphasizes that ongoing or unaddressed harm can obstruct forgiveness, while variations in healing trajectories may delay or complicate it. Updating current understanding, this framework adds insight into when forgiveness may be inappropriate. It offers providers ethical guidance in navigating this terrain through a person-centred approach balancing empathy and accountability. The framework aims to facilitate healing for the patient and provider, regardless of whether forgiveness occurs.

医疗领域宽恕的10个限度。
合规和监管机构经常鼓励医疗保健提供者披露不当行为并为此道歉。患者可能认为宽恕是被期待的,并感到给予宽恕的压力。然而,宽恕是有后果的,这些后果会给宽恕带来限制。理解这些限制对于理解宽恕何时能治愈或加重创伤至关重要。本文探讨了宽恕的10个情境限制,分为四类。第一类概述了概念上的限制:并非所有的伤害都需要宽恕,一些邪恶的行为可能超出人类的宽恕,指责可能与宽恕不相容。其次,道德和伦理限制源于问责制如何使宽恕变得紧张,道德绝对主义如何阻碍宽恕,以及代理宽恕如何缺乏道德合法性。第三类是关系和社会限制。强迫和解会破坏宽恕。制度疏忽扩散罪责,阻碍个人宽恕,并要求优先考虑受害者的康复和利益,尽管责任被稀释了。最后,第四类强调时间和过程相关的限制。它强调持续或未解决的伤害会阻碍宽恕,而愈合轨迹的变化可能会延迟或使其复杂化。更新当前的理解,这个框架增加了对宽恕何时可能不合适的见解。它通过以人为本的方法平衡同理心和问责制,为服务提供者提供道德指导。该框架旨在促进患者和提供者的康复,无论宽恕是否发生。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信