道德工艺:参与医疗决策的价值多元化。

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Michael Parker
{"title":"道德工艺:参与医疗决策的价值多元化。","authors":"Michael Parker","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00266-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare professionals routinely navigate complex value conflicts that span personal, interpersonal, and organisational domains. This paper examines the concept of moral craftsmanship-the skilled practice of understanding, analysing, and working through value conflicts in healthcare settings-and argues that value pluralism provides a more realistic framework for healthcare ethics than approaches seeking overarching moral consensus. Through analysis of cases spanning clinical genetics, paediatric end-of-life care, and institutional resource allocation, the paper explores how value conflicts manifest across interconnected domains and explores the practical reasoning processes through which healthcare professionals successfully navigate seemingly intractable moral disagreements. Drawing on examples from clinical genetics counselling and recent analyses of dissensus in paediatric care, the paper argues that deep value pluralism is compatible with reasoned decision-making and that moral craftsmanship represents an essential skill for effective healthcare practice. Oversimplified ethical frameworks risk creating dangerous gaps between institutional processes and lived moral experience, potentially undermining public trust in healthcare systems. Healthcare institutions must develop approaches that acknowledge genuine value plurality while supporting practical decision-making, maintaining mechanisms for incorporating diverse public values, and addressing the moral residue that persists beyond immediate decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moral craft: engaging with value pluralism in healthcare decision-making.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Parker\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40592-025-00266-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Healthcare professionals routinely navigate complex value conflicts that span personal, interpersonal, and organisational domains. This paper examines the concept of moral craftsmanship-the skilled practice of understanding, analysing, and working through value conflicts in healthcare settings-and argues that value pluralism provides a more realistic framework for healthcare ethics than approaches seeking overarching moral consensus. Through analysis of cases spanning clinical genetics, paediatric end-of-life care, and institutional resource allocation, the paper explores how value conflicts manifest across interconnected domains and explores the practical reasoning processes through which healthcare professionals successfully navigate seemingly intractable moral disagreements. Drawing on examples from clinical genetics counselling and recent analyses of dissensus in paediatric care, the paper argues that deep value pluralism is compatible with reasoned decision-making and that moral craftsmanship represents an essential skill for effective healthcare practice. Oversimplified ethical frameworks risk creating dangerous gaps between institutional processes and lived moral experience, potentially undermining public trust in healthcare systems. Healthcare institutions must develop approaches that acknowledge genuine value plurality while supporting practical decision-making, maintaining mechanisms for incorporating diverse public values, and addressing the moral residue that persists beyond immediate decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00266-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00266-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健专业人员经常处理跨越个人、人际和组织领域的复杂价值冲突。本文考察了道德工艺的概念——在医疗保健环境中理解、分析和处理价值冲突的熟练实践——并认为价值多元化为医疗保健伦理提供了比寻求总体道德共识的方法更现实的框架。通过对临床遗传学、儿科临终关怀和机构资源分配等案例的分析,本文探讨了价值冲突如何在相互关联的领域中表现出来,并探讨了医疗保健专业人员成功驾驭看似棘手的道德分歧的实际推理过程。从临床遗传学咨询和儿科护理意见分歧的最新分析的例子中,本文认为,深层价值多元化与理性决策是相容的,道德工艺代表了有效的医疗保健实践的基本技能。过于简化的伦理框架有可能在制度流程和实际道德经验之间造成危险的差距,从而可能破坏公众对卫生保健系统的信任。医疗保健机构必须制定方法,承认真正的价值多元性,同时支持实际决策,维护纳入不同公共价值观的机制,并解决即时决策之外持续存在的道德残留问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moral craft: engaging with value pluralism in healthcare decision-making.

Healthcare professionals routinely navigate complex value conflicts that span personal, interpersonal, and organisational domains. This paper examines the concept of moral craftsmanship-the skilled practice of understanding, analysing, and working through value conflicts in healthcare settings-and argues that value pluralism provides a more realistic framework for healthcare ethics than approaches seeking overarching moral consensus. Through analysis of cases spanning clinical genetics, paediatric end-of-life care, and institutional resource allocation, the paper explores how value conflicts manifest across interconnected domains and explores the practical reasoning processes through which healthcare professionals successfully navigate seemingly intractable moral disagreements. Drawing on examples from clinical genetics counselling and recent analyses of dissensus in paediatric care, the paper argues that deep value pluralism is compatible with reasoned decision-making and that moral craftsmanship represents an essential skill for effective healthcare practice. Oversimplified ethical frameworks risk creating dangerous gaps between institutional processes and lived moral experience, potentially undermining public trust in healthcare systems. Healthcare institutions must develop approaches that acknowledge genuine value plurality while supporting practical decision-making, maintaining mechanisms for incorporating diverse public values, and addressing the moral residue that persists beyond immediate decisions.

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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
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