Building Moral Community in an Age of Polarization: A Model for Reconciling Rights of Conscience in Healthcare Organizations.

IF 2.1 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Andrea N Frolic, Winifred Badaiki, Marta Simpson-Tirone
{"title":"Building Moral Community in an Age of Polarization: A Model for Reconciling Rights of Conscience in Healthcare Organizations.","authors":"Andrea N Frolic, Winifred Badaiki, Marta Simpson-Tirone","doi":"10.1007/s11673-026-10609-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Responding to conscientious objection and participation declarations to various morally contentious medical services requires a careful, inclusive, and comprehensive approach in reconciling the right of conscience of involved parties. In this paper, we make a case that the traditional discourse of whether or not to accommodate conscience-based requests does not adequately support complex, team-based healthcare systems in addressing emerging areas of moral controversy in medicine, particularly in this era of polarization. We describe how key parties in our organization developed an inclusive and comprehensive approach to reconciling rights of conscience in the context of the introduction of a morally contentious and divisive medical practice. This approach prioritized the building of a moral community, a recognition of moral diversity, a values-based approach, and the development of resources and infrastructure in managing conscience-based requests, to enable healthcare professionals uphold their fiduciary duties and promote positive patient experiences. This model of managing conscientious based situations may be applicable to other healthcare organizations that provide various morally controversial services.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10609-w","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

Responding to conscientious objection and participation declarations to various morally contentious medical services requires a careful, inclusive, and comprehensive approach in reconciling the right of conscience of involved parties. In this paper, we make a case that the traditional discourse of whether or not to accommodate conscience-based requests does not adequately support complex, team-based healthcare systems in addressing emerging areas of moral controversy in medicine, particularly in this era of polarization. We describe how key parties in our organization developed an inclusive and comprehensive approach to reconciling rights of conscience in the context of the introduction of a morally contentious and divisive medical practice. This approach prioritized the building of a moral community, a recognition of moral diversity, a values-based approach, and the development of resources and infrastructure in managing conscience-based requests, to enable healthcare professionals uphold their fiduciary duties and promote positive patient experiences. This model of managing conscientious based situations may be applicable to other healthcare organizations that provide various morally controversial services.

两极化时代的道德共同体建设:医疗机构良心权利协调模式
对各种道德上有争议的医疗服务的良心反对和参与声明作出回应,需要采取谨慎、包容和全面的方法,以协调有关各方的良心权利。在本文中,我们提出了一个案例,即是否适应基于良心的要求的传统话语并不能充分支持复杂的、以团队为基础的医疗保健系统,以解决医学中新兴的道德争议领域,特别是在这个两极分化的时代。我们描述了本组织的主要各方如何在引入道德上有争议和分歧的医疗实践的背景下,制定了一种包容和全面的方法来调和良心权利。这种方法优先考虑建立一个道德社区,承认道德多样性,基于价值观的方法,以及在管理基于良心的请求方面开发资源和基础设施,使医疗保健专业人员能够履行其受托责任并促进积极的患者体验。这种基于良心的管理模式可能适用于提供各种道德争议服务的其他医疗保健组织。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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
小红书