Reasons to Redefine Moral Distress: A Feminist Empirical Bioethics Analysis

There has been increasing debate in recent years about the conceptualization of moral distress. Broadly speaking, two groups of scholars have emerged: those who agree with Jameton’s ‘narrow definition’ that focuses on constraint and those who argue that Jameton’s definition is insufficient and needs...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:  
Библиографические подробности
Главные авторы: Morley, Georgina (Автор) ; Bradbury-Jones, Caroline (Автор) ; Ives, Jonathan 1980- (Автор)
Формат: Электронный ресурс Статья
Язык:Английский
Проверить наличие: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Загрузка...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Опубликовано: Wiley-Blackwell [2021]
В: Bioethics
Год: 2021, Том: 35, Выпуск: 1, Страницы: 61-71
Индексация IxTheo:NCH Медицинская этика
Другие ключевые слова:B Nursing Ethics
B empirical bioethics
B Clinical Practice
B Moral Distress
B Feminist ethics
B clinical ethics
Online-ссылка: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)
Описание
Итог:There has been increasing debate in recent years about the conceptualization of moral distress. Broadly speaking, two groups of scholars have emerged: those who agree with Jameton’s ‘narrow definition’ that focuses on constraint and those who argue that Jameton’s definition is insufficient and needs to be broadened. Using feminist empirical bioethics, we interviewed critical care nurses in the United Kingdom about their experiences and conceptualizations of moral distress. We provide our broader definition of moral distress and examples of data that both challenge and support our conceptualization. We pre-empt and overcome three key challenges that could be levelled at our account and argue that there are good reasons to adopt our broader definition of moral distress when exploring prevalence of, and management strategies for, moral distress.
ISSN:1467-8519
Второстепенные работы:Enthalten in: Bioethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12783