基于高级指令文件的参与临终关怀的医疗从业者话语中的伦理原则和困境

Q3 Medicine
Ana Milena Álvarez Acuña, Julián Camilo Riaño Moreno, Jhonatan López Neira, Ómar Fernando Gomezese Ribero
{"title":"基于高级指令文件的参与临终关怀的医疗从业者话语中的伦理原则和困境","authors":"Ana Milena Álvarez Acuña, Julián Camilo Riaño Moreno, Jhonatan López Neira, Ómar Fernando Gomezese Ribero","doi":"10.5554/22562087.e1046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The Advanced Directives Document (ADD) is an efficient tool to plan for future medical care in case of a potential loss of autonomy. Ethical dilemmas arise in end-of-life care, including the principle of respect for autonomy and potential beneficence involved in health care, leading to moral distress of practitioners. \nObjective. To identify the ethical principles and dilemmas arising from the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the ADD.   \nMethodology. Qualitative study with a hermeneutics approach based on 253 answers to the following exploratory question: Are you willing to respect the ADD of an unconscious patient when you think that the patient may benefit otherwise?   \nResults. Most practitioners acknowledge their respect for the ADD as an ethical obligation, whilst a minority consider it a legal right. For the large majority of practitioners, the ethical principles of respect for the ADD are recognized under the ethical theory of liberal individualism. Respect for autonomy is associated with the principle of non-maleficence and the value of human dignity. The principle of beneficence and the quality of life concept were presented as genuine moral dilemmas. A reversible clinical condition, the request for euthanasia, the family and the legibility of anticipated directives were submitted as apparent moral dilemmas. \nConclusions. During the end-of-life decision making process, there are other valid ethical considerations beyond principlism. The dilemmas identified show the ethical complexity healthcare practitioners face based on the ADD.","PeriodicalId":36529,"journal":{"name":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical principles and dilemmas in the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the Advanced Directives Document\",\"authors\":\"Ana Milena Álvarez Acuña, Julián Camilo Riaño Moreno, Jhonatan López Neira, Ómar Fernando Gomezese Ribero\",\"doi\":\"10.5554/22562087.e1046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. The Advanced Directives Document (ADD) is an efficient tool to plan for future medical care in case of a potential loss of autonomy. Ethical dilemmas arise in end-of-life care, including the principle of respect for autonomy and potential beneficence involved in health care, leading to moral distress of practitioners. \\nObjective. To identify the ethical principles and dilemmas arising from the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the ADD.   \\nMethodology. Qualitative study with a hermeneutics approach based on 253 answers to the following exploratory question: Are you willing to respect the ADD of an unconscious patient when you think that the patient may benefit otherwise?   \\nResults. Most practitioners acknowledge their respect for the ADD as an ethical obligation, whilst a minority consider it a legal right. For the large majority of practitioners, the ethical principles of respect for the ADD are recognized under the ethical theory of liberal individualism. Respect for autonomy is associated with the principle of non-maleficence and the value of human dignity. The principle of beneficence and the quality of life concept were presented as genuine moral dilemmas. A reversible clinical condition, the request for euthanasia, the family and the legibility of anticipated directives were submitted as apparent moral dilemmas. \\nConclusions. During the end-of-life decision making process, there are other valid ethical considerations beyond principlism. The dilemmas identified show the ethical complexity healthcare practitioners face based on the ADD.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1046\",\"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":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1046","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

介绍高级指令文件(ADD)是在潜在丧失自主性的情况下规划未来医疗保健的有效工具。临终关怀中出现了道德困境,包括尊重医疗保健中的自主性和潜在利益的原则,导致从业者的道德困境。客观的确定参与基于ADD的临终关怀的医疗从业者的话语中产生的伦理原则和困境。方法论。基于以下探索性问题的253个答案的解释学方法的定性研究:当你认为患者可能从其他方面受益时,你愿意尊重无意识患者的ADD吗?结果。大多数从业者承认他们对ADD的尊重是一项道德义务,而少数人则认为这是一项法律权利。对于绝大多数从业者来说,尊重ADD的伦理原则是在自由个人主义的伦理理论下得到认可的。尊重自主权与不伤害原则和人的尊严价值相联系。慈善原则和生活质量概念被认为是真正的道德困境。可逆的临床状况、安乐死的请求、家庭和预期指令的易读性被认为是明显的道德困境。结论。在临终决策过程中,除了原则主义之外,还有其他有效的伦理考虑。所发现的困境显示了基于ADD的医疗从业者所面临的道德复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical principles and dilemmas in the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the Advanced Directives Document
Introduction. The Advanced Directives Document (ADD) is an efficient tool to plan for future medical care in case of a potential loss of autonomy. Ethical dilemmas arise in end-of-life care, including the principle of respect for autonomy and potential beneficence involved in health care, leading to moral distress of practitioners. Objective. To identify the ethical principles and dilemmas arising from the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the ADD.   Methodology. Qualitative study with a hermeneutics approach based on 253 answers to the following exploratory question: Are you willing to respect the ADD of an unconscious patient when you think that the patient may benefit otherwise?   Results. Most practitioners acknowledge their respect for the ADD as an ethical obligation, whilst a minority consider it a legal right. For the large majority of practitioners, the ethical principles of respect for the ADD are recognized under the ethical theory of liberal individualism. Respect for autonomy is associated with the principle of non-maleficence and the value of human dignity. The principle of beneficence and the quality of life concept were presented as genuine moral dilemmas. A reversible clinical condition, the request for euthanasia, the family and the legibility of anticipated directives were submitted as apparent moral dilemmas. Conclusions. During the end-of-life decision making process, there are other valid ethical considerations beyond principlism. The dilemmas identified show the ethical complexity healthcare practitioners face based on the ADD.
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
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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