评估护士良心反对:一个新框架的应用。

IF 1.2 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Maya Zumstein-Shaha, Lucia D Wocial, Vicki D Lachman, Norah Louise Johnson, Cynda Hylton Rushton, Pamela J Grace
{"title":"评估护士良心反对:一个新框架的应用。","authors":"Maya Zumstein-Shaha, Lucia D Wocial, Vicki D Lachman, Norah Louise Johnson, Cynda Hylton Rushton, Pamela J Grace","doi":"10.1007/s10730-025-09556-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Certain moral beliefs and/or values about what is good or harmful can cause nurses and other healthcare professionals to object to participating in some clinical actions. Such objections are also called conscientious objections. Invocation of a conscientious objection (CO) can produce complexities in patient care and health care delivery and must be mindfully evaluated for its soundness. In this manuscript, a recently developed framework, The Ethical Evaluation of a Nurse's Conscientious Objection (EENCO), is applied to expose hidden elements and nuances in a proposed or actual CO by nurses or other healthcare professionals, thereby illuminating strategies that can lessen associated harms. The EENCO is utilized to explore two types of situations where a nurse makes a CO claim. Scenario 1 involves a nurse's reluctance to follow provider medication orders intended to relieve pain and suffering at the end-of-life. In scenario 2, nurses object to a visitation policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we provide a summary of the necessary elements of institutional policy to address claims of CO using the EENCO. Drawing on the EENCO, the two scenarios were analyzed for their ethical implications. This framework contributes to the exposure, scrutiny, and clarification of potentially unappreciated aspects of CO claims. Steps for developing institutional policy are identified. Application of the EENCO guides the analysis of the two scenarios. CO claims are explored more deeply, thereby revealing implications for those involved. Additionally, the EENCO provides guidance for the development of institutional CO policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Nurse Conscientious Objection: Application of a Novel Framework.\",\"authors\":\"Maya Zumstein-Shaha, Lucia D Wocial, Vicki D Lachman, Norah Louise Johnson, Cynda Hylton Rushton, Pamela J Grace\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10730-025-09556-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Certain moral beliefs and/or values about what is good or harmful can cause nurses and other healthcare professionals to object to participating in some clinical actions. Such objections are also called conscientious objections. Invocation of a conscientious objection (CO) can produce complexities in patient care and health care delivery and must be mindfully evaluated for its soundness. In this manuscript, a recently developed framework, The Ethical Evaluation of a Nurse's Conscientious Objection (EENCO), is applied to expose hidden elements and nuances in a proposed or actual CO by nurses or other healthcare professionals, thereby illuminating strategies that can lessen associated harms. The EENCO is utilized to explore two types of situations where a nurse makes a CO claim. Scenario 1 involves a nurse's reluctance to follow provider medication orders intended to relieve pain and suffering at the end-of-life. In scenario 2, nurses object to a visitation policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we provide a summary of the necessary elements of institutional policy to address claims of CO using the EENCO. Drawing on the EENCO, the two scenarios were analyzed for their ethical implications. This framework contributes to the exposure, scrutiny, and clarification of potentially unappreciated aspects of CO claims. Steps for developing institutional policy are identified. Application of the EENCO guides the analysis of the two scenarios. CO claims are explored more deeply, thereby revealing implications for those involved. Additionally, the EENCO provides guidance for the development of institutional CO policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hec Forum\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hec Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-025-09556-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-025-09556-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

某些道德信仰和/或关于什么是好的或有害的价值观可能导致护士和其他医疗保健专业人员反对参加一些临床行动。这种反对也被称为良心反对。援引良心反对(CO)可能会在患者护理和医疗保健服务中产生复杂性,必须仔细评估其合理性。在这篇手稿中,一个最近开发的框架,护士良心反对的道德评估(EENCO),被应用于暴露护士或其他医疗保健专业人员提出或实际CO中的隐藏元素和细微差别,从而阐明可以减少相关危害的策略。EENCO用于探讨护士提出CO索赔的两种情况。场景1涉及护士不愿意遵循提供者的药物处方,旨在减轻生命结束时的疼痛和痛苦。在场景2中,护士反对COVID-19大流行期间的探视政策。此外,我们还总结了使用EENCO解决CO索赔的制度政策的必要要素。根据EENCO,分析了这两种情况的伦理含义。该框架有助于暴露、审查和澄清CO索赔中可能未被理解的方面。确定了制定制度政策的步骤。EENCO的应用指导了这两种场景的分析。对CO索赔进行了更深入的探讨,从而揭示了对相关人员的影响。此外,EENCO还为机构CO政策的制定提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Nurse Conscientious Objection: Application of a Novel Framework.

Certain moral beliefs and/or values about what is good or harmful can cause nurses and other healthcare professionals to object to participating in some clinical actions. Such objections are also called conscientious objections. Invocation of a conscientious objection (CO) can produce complexities in patient care and health care delivery and must be mindfully evaluated for its soundness. In this manuscript, a recently developed framework, The Ethical Evaluation of a Nurse's Conscientious Objection (EENCO), is applied to expose hidden elements and nuances in a proposed or actual CO by nurses or other healthcare professionals, thereby illuminating strategies that can lessen associated harms. The EENCO is utilized to explore two types of situations where a nurse makes a CO claim. Scenario 1 involves a nurse's reluctance to follow provider medication orders intended to relieve pain and suffering at the end-of-life. In scenario 2, nurses object to a visitation policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we provide a summary of the necessary elements of institutional policy to address claims of CO using the EENCO. Drawing on the EENCO, the two scenarios were analyzed for their ethical implications. This framework contributes to the exposure, scrutiny, and clarification of potentially unappreciated aspects of CO claims. Steps for developing institutional policy are identified. Application of the EENCO guides the analysis of the two scenarios. CO claims are explored more deeply, thereby revealing implications for those involved. Additionally, the EENCO provides guidance for the development of institutional CO policies.

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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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