深入了解伦理咨询。

Q3 Medicine
Haavi Morreim
{"title":"深入了解伦理咨询。","authors":"Haavi Morreim","doi":"10.1086/733384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractAutumn Fiester suggests that trauma-informed ethics consultation (TIEC) should focus on surrogate decision makers (SDMs) in preference over patients when (<i>a</i>) the patient is comatose or neurologically devastated, and hence beyond the capacity for suffering or further trauma; (<i>b</i>) the patient is thus incapable of asserting preferences; and (<i>c</i>) the patient's wishes are not known, for example, in the absence of an advance directive. Therefore, (<i>d</i>) in these instances the moral obligation to prevent trauma for SDMs overrides obligations to patients. Perhaps Fiester might countenance other instances, but, as presented, Fiester's TIEC placing others' trauma above patients' is thus construed fairly narrowly. This commentary first offers a few brief observations regarding each tenet of Fiester's argument and then offers broader reflections on ethics consultation and on TIEC in particular. As discussed below, when the issue sparking the request for an ethics consultant (EC) is a bona fide question of values rather than, for example, clearing up miscommunication or identifying a need for further information, ECs aim primarily to gather information and then offer their recommendation(s). This mission, I suggest, stands on thinner ice than we may recognize. Moreover, I will argue that if ECs disclose that mission to patients and SDMs with full clarity and truth, genuine TIEC becomes virtually impossible.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 1","pages":"77-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Deeper Look at Ethics Consultation.\",\"authors\":\"Haavi Morreim\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/733384\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>AbstractAutumn Fiester suggests that trauma-informed ethics consultation (TIEC) should focus on surrogate decision makers (SDMs) in preference over patients when (<i>a</i>) the patient is comatose or neurologically devastated, and hence beyond the capacity for suffering or further trauma; (<i>b</i>) the patient is thus incapable of asserting preferences; and (<i>c</i>) the patient's wishes are not known, for example, in the absence of an advance directive. Therefore, (<i>d</i>) in these instances the moral obligation to prevent trauma for SDMs overrides obligations to patients. Perhaps Fiester might countenance other instances, but, as presented, Fiester's TIEC placing others' trauma above patients' is thus construed fairly narrowly. This commentary first offers a few brief observations regarding each tenet of Fiester's argument and then offers broader reflections on ethics consultation and on TIEC in particular. As discussed below, when the issue sparking the request for an ethics consultant (EC) is a bona fide question of values rather than, for example, clearing up miscommunication or identifying a need for further information, ECs aim primarily to gather information and then offer their recommendation(s). This mission, I suggest, stands on thinner ice than we may recognize. Moreover, I will argue that if ECs disclose that mission to patients and SDMs with full clarity and truth, genuine TIEC becomes virtually impossible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"77-83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/733384\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/733384","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

【摘要】autumn Fiester建议,在以下情况下,创伤知情伦理咨询(TIEC)应优先关注替代决策者(SDMs),而不是患者:(a)患者处于昏迷状态或神经系统破坏状态,因此无法承受或进一步的创伤;(b)患者因此无法主张自己的偏好;(c)不知道病人的意愿,例如,在没有预先指示的情况下。因此,(d)在这些情况下,防止sdm遭受创伤的道德义务高于对患者的义务。也许费斯特可能会支持其他的例子,但是,正如所呈现的,费斯特的TIEC将他人的创伤置于患者之上,因此被解释得相当狭隘。这篇评论首先对菲斯特论证的每个原则提供了一些简短的观察,然后对伦理咨询,特别是TIEC进行了更广泛的反思。正如下文所讨论的,当要求聘请道德顾问的问题是一个真正的价值观问题,而不是(例如)澄清误解或确定需要进一步的信息时,道德顾问的主要目的是收集信息,然后提出建议。我认为,这项任务的冰面比我们想象的要薄。此外,我认为,如果ECs向患者和sdm充分明确和真实地披露这一使命,真正的TIEC几乎是不可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Deeper Look at Ethics Consultation.

AbstractAutumn Fiester suggests that trauma-informed ethics consultation (TIEC) should focus on surrogate decision makers (SDMs) in preference over patients when (a) the patient is comatose or neurologically devastated, and hence beyond the capacity for suffering or further trauma; (b) the patient is thus incapable of asserting preferences; and (c) the patient's wishes are not known, for example, in the absence of an advance directive. Therefore, (d) in these instances the moral obligation to prevent trauma for SDMs overrides obligations to patients. Perhaps Fiester might countenance other instances, but, as presented, Fiester's TIEC placing others' trauma above patients' is thus construed fairly narrowly. This commentary first offers a few brief observations regarding each tenet of Fiester's argument and then offers broader reflections on ethics consultation and on TIEC in particular. As discussed below, when the issue sparking the request for an ethics consultant (EC) is a bona fide question of values rather than, for example, clearing up miscommunication or identifying a need for further information, ECs aim primarily to gather information and then offer their recommendation(s). This mission, I suggest, stands on thinner ice than we may recognize. Moreover, I will argue that if ECs disclose that mission to patients and SDMs with full clarity and truth, genuine TIEC becomes virtually impossible.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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