Approaches to Nursing Ethics

T. Pence
{"title":"Approaches to Nursing Ethics","authors":"T. Pence","doi":"10.5840/PHILCONTEXT1987172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To many minds, the publication of Joseph Fltichtfs Morals and Medicine^ in 1954 signaled a new beginning in medical ethics. I believe that the publication of the first edition of Ethical Dilemmas and Nursing Practice^ by Anne J. Davis and Mila A . Aroskar in 1978 has a similar status within the field of nursing ethics. Comparatively, contemporary nursing ethics literature is still in its infancy, but it has grown to the point that useful observations about its emerging shape can be made.^ It will be the aim of this paper to argue that the nursing ethics literature (i.e. books and articles on ethical issues in nursing) can be characterized as exhibiting three basic approaches to nursing ethics. What distinguishes these various approaches from one another is the primary focus of appeal in resolving ethical issues. Of course, the broadest and most obvious sort is to appeal to moral theories. A second approach looks to traditional moral principles and ideals found within the medical profession. A third approach deals with ethical issues from the perspective of a philosophical conception of the nature of nursing. For the sake of convenience, let's refer to these three approaches as the ethical theory approach, the moral principles approach and the philosophical foundation approach, respectively. It will be the burden of my paper to suggest that it is the third—the philosophical foundations approach—which is the best approach for conceptually framing and discussing ethical issues in nursing. I believe that it captures more of the considerations which actually determine how a nurse chooses to act. In addition to having greater empirical adequacy with respect to the professional decision-making process, it also possesses a kind of theoretical fruitfulness not found in the others. That is, it has generated bold professional stances on issues such as informed consent and orders not to resuscitate which might not have been anticipated on the other approaches. In the following sections I will briefly illustrate the other two approaches, making my case for the third, and finally make some observations about what this approach implies about doing applied ethics.","PeriodicalId":82314,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy in context","volume":"17 1","pages":"7-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/PHILCONTEXT1987172","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy in context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/PHILCONTEXT1987172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To many minds, the publication of Joseph Fltichtfs Morals and Medicine^ in 1954 signaled a new beginning in medical ethics. I believe that the publication of the first edition of Ethical Dilemmas and Nursing Practice^ by Anne J. Davis and Mila A . Aroskar in 1978 has a similar status within the field of nursing ethics. Comparatively, contemporary nursing ethics literature is still in its infancy, but it has grown to the point that useful observations about its emerging shape can be made.^ It will be the aim of this paper to argue that the nursing ethics literature (i.e. books and articles on ethical issues in nursing) can be characterized as exhibiting three basic approaches to nursing ethics. What distinguishes these various approaches from one another is the primary focus of appeal in resolving ethical issues. Of course, the broadest and most obvious sort is to appeal to moral theories. A second approach looks to traditional moral principles and ideals found within the medical profession. A third approach deals with ethical issues from the perspective of a philosophical conception of the nature of nursing. For the sake of convenience, let's refer to these three approaches as the ethical theory approach, the moral principles approach and the philosophical foundation approach, respectively. It will be the burden of my paper to suggest that it is the third—the philosophical foundations approach—which is the best approach for conceptually framing and discussing ethical issues in nursing. I believe that it captures more of the considerations which actually determine how a nurse chooses to act. In addition to having greater empirical adequacy with respect to the professional decision-making process, it also possesses a kind of theoretical fruitfulness not found in the others. That is, it has generated bold professional stances on issues such as informed consent and orders not to resuscitate which might not have been anticipated on the other approaches. In the following sections I will briefly illustrate the other two approaches, making my case for the third, and finally make some observations about what this approach implies about doing applied ethics.
护理伦理学的途径
对许多人来说,1954年约瑟夫·弗莱契夫的《道德与医学》的出版标志着医学伦理学的一个新开端。我相信第一版《伦理困境与护理实践》的出版,安妮·j·戴维斯和米拉·A。1978年的Aroskar在护理伦理学领域有着类似的地位。相比之下,当代护理伦理学文献仍处于起步阶段,但它已经发展到可以对其新兴形态进行有用观察的地步。^本文的目的是论证护理伦理学文献(即关于护理伦理问题的书籍和文章)可以被描述为展示三种护理伦理学的基本方法。这些不同的方法彼此之间的区别在于解决伦理问题的吸引力的主要焦点。当然,最广泛、最明显的一种是诉诸道德理论。第二种方法着眼于医学专业中的传统道德原则和理想。第三种方法是从护理本质的哲学概念的角度处理伦理问题。为方便起见,我们将这三种途径分别称为伦理理论途径、道德原则途径和哲学基础途径。这将是我论文的负担,我认为这是第三种——哲学基础方法——这是概念框架和讨论护理伦理问题的最佳方法。我相信它抓住了更多决定护士选择如何行动的考虑因素。除了在专业决策过程方面具有更大的经验充分性外,它还具有其他理论所没有的理论丰富性。也就是说,它在知情同意和不进行复苏的命令等问题上产生了大胆的专业立场,这在其他方法上可能是预料不到的。在接下来的章节中,我将简要地说明其他两种方法,为第三种方法提供我的案例,最后对这种方法对应用伦理学的含义进行一些观察。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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