Justifying non-violent resistance: The perspectives of healthcare workers

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Ryan Essex, Hilary Aked, Rebecca Daniels, P. Newton, S. Weldon
{"title":"Justifying non-violent resistance: The perspectives of healthcare workers","authors":"Ryan Essex, Hilary Aked, Rebecca Daniels, P. Newton, S. Weldon","doi":"10.1177/14777509231156050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Non-violent resistance, carried out by healthcare workers, has been a common phenomenon. Despite this and despite the issues this type of action raises, we know little about the healthcare workers who engage in this action and their perspectives about its justification. This exploratory study sought to address this gap, examining these fundamental questions amongst a sample of healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of resistance, exploring their understanding of non-violent resistance, its justification and the barriers they faced in engaging in such action. Methods: Participants were recruited through Medact's ( https://www.medact.org/ ) member database and directed to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. While participants were unlikely to be representative of the broader UK healthcare community, participants were in an advantageous position to comment on non-violent resistance. Descriptive quantitative analysis and a content analysis were conducted. Results: The majority of participants felt that non-violent resistance could be justified dependent on its cause and/or the action in question. Within this, most felt that if action were non-violent, that if it didn't harm patients and that if the issue in question had to do with health being compromised, action was often justified. A number of others framed their justification as being a right or duty to engage in non-violent resistance. In relation to barriers to engaging in non-violent resistance, these fell into three categories: personal, professional and broader concerns related to society or the general culture found in healthcare. Within these, time and concerns about registration or the consequences of engaging in action were cited as the greatest barriers. Conclusions: These results suggest that healthcare workers who regularly engage in non-violent action carefully thought through their actions, acknowledging the diversity of actions and issues that could be challenged, for many patient care remained a primary concern. There is a need for clarity from regulatory bodies and in particular the need for dialogue between healthcare bodies and healthcare workers who continue to engage in acts of non-violent resistance.","PeriodicalId":53540,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509231156050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Non-violent resistance, carried out by healthcare workers, has been a common phenomenon. Despite this and despite the issues this type of action raises, we know little about the healthcare workers who engage in this action and their perspectives about its justification. This exploratory study sought to address this gap, examining these fundamental questions amongst a sample of healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of resistance, exploring their understanding of non-violent resistance, its justification and the barriers they faced in engaging in such action. Methods: Participants were recruited through Medact's ( https://www.medact.org/ ) member database and directed to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. While participants were unlikely to be representative of the broader UK healthcare community, participants were in an advantageous position to comment on non-violent resistance. Descriptive quantitative analysis and a content analysis were conducted. Results: The majority of participants felt that non-violent resistance could be justified dependent on its cause and/or the action in question. Within this, most felt that if action were non-violent, that if it didn't harm patients and that if the issue in question had to do with health being compromised, action was often justified. A number of others framed their justification as being a right or duty to engage in non-violent resistance. In relation to barriers to engaging in non-violent resistance, these fell into three categories: personal, professional and broader concerns related to society or the general culture found in healthcare. Within these, time and concerns about registration or the consequences of engaging in action were cited as the greatest barriers. Conclusions: These results suggest that healthcare workers who regularly engage in non-violent action carefully thought through their actions, acknowledging the diversity of actions and issues that could be challenged, for many patient care remained a primary concern. There is a need for clarity from regulatory bodies and in particular the need for dialogue between healthcare bodies and healthcare workers who continue to engage in acts of non-violent resistance.
为非暴力抵抗辩护:医疗工作者的观点
由卫生保健工作者进行的非暴力抵抗已成为一种普遍现象。尽管如此,尽管这类行动引发了一些问题,但我们对参与这类行动的医护人员以及他们对其正当性的看法知之甚少。这项探索性研究试图解决这一差距,在参与抵抗行动的卫生保健工作者样本中检查这些基本问题,探讨他们对非暴力抵抗的理解、非暴力抵抗的理由以及他们在参与这种行动时面临的障碍。方法:参与者通过Medact (https://www.medact.org/)会员数据库招募,并被引导到Qualtrics网站上进行在线调查。虽然参与者不太可能代表更广泛的英国医疗保健界,但参与者在评论非暴力抵抗方面处于有利地位。进行了描述性定量分析和内容分析。结果:大多数参与者认为非暴力抵抗是合理的,取决于其原因和/或所讨论的行动。在这种情况下,大多数人认为,如果行动是非暴力的,如果它不伤害病人,如果所讨论的问题与健康受到损害有关,那么行动通常是合理的。还有一些人把他们的理由说成是参与非暴力抵抗的权利或义务。关于进行非暴力抵抗的障碍,这些障碍分为三类:个人的、专业的和与社会或保健中的一般文化有关的更广泛的关切。其中,时间和对登记或采取行动的后果的关切被认为是最大的障碍。结论:这些结果表明,经常参与非暴力行动的医护人员仔细考虑了他们的行动,承认行动的多样性和可能受到挑战的问题,对许多病人来说,护理仍然是首要考虑的问题。监管机构需要明确说明,特别是需要在保健机构和继续从事非暴力抵抗行动的保健工作者之间进行对话。
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
Clinical Ethics
Clinical Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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