Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue S1, Page S24-S29, March‐April 2022.

Like COVID-19, new infectious disease outbreaks emerge almost annually, and studies predict that this trend will continue due to a variety of factors, including an aging population, ease of travel, and globalization of the economy. In response to episodic public health crises, governments and organizations develop, implement, and enforce policies, procedures, protocols, and programs. The epidemiological triad is both a model of disease causation and fundamentally used to design and deploy such control measures. Here we adapt this model to the (...) workplace setting and use the epidemiological triad to characterize the related ethical challenges in implementing the control measures employers face as a guide for a workplace intervention framework. Through this approach, our aim is to show how an integrated ethical framework, grounded in epidemiological principles, has important implications for how we categorize, understand, and resolve the difficult decisions that emerge in the workplace under pandemic conditions. (shrink)

Background: When individuals are aware of the appropriate ethical practice, but lack the ability to do it, they will suffer from moral distress. Moral distress is a frequent phenomenon in clinical practice which can have different effects on the performance of physicians, nurses, and midwives, and therefore patients and health care systems. Research objective: The present study aimed to determine the severity and frequency of moral distress in midwives working in birth centers. Research design: This study is a descriptive cross-sectional (...) research. Researcher-made questionnaire was used to gather data. Participants and research context: A total of 180 midwives working in the labor ward of the public birth centers affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences were included to the study by census. Ethical considerations: Official permission for data collecting was obtained from the directors of the birth centers affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Then, after explaining the objectives of the study and assuring the confidentially of information, verbal consent of the participants was obtained. Findings: The total mean ± standard deviation of the severity and frequency of moral distress were 3.85 ± 0.75 and 3.03 ± 0.48, respectively. The highest severity and the lowest frequency of moral distress were obtained for the assistance for abortion and the lowest severity of moral distress was related to the organizational domain. However, the highest frequency of moral distress was related to futile care field. The mean of moral distress severity in the midwives with associate degree was significantly lower than other levels of education. Also, there was a significant relationship between age and moral distress frequency (p = 0.010). Discussion: The midwives’ moral distress was relatively high as expected. This finding is consistent with the results of similar studies in intensive care unit nurses. Conclusion: After identifying the level and most important factors of moral distress among midwives, the next step is empower them to prevent moral distress, in particular efforts to change structures. (shrink)

The term “effective,” on its own, is honorific but vague. Interventions against serious mental illness may be “effective” at goals as diverse as reducing “apparent sadness” or providing housing. Underexamined use of “effective” and other success terms often obfuscates differences and incompatibilities in interventions, degrees of effectiveness, key omissions in effectiveness standards, and values involved in determining what counts as “effective.” Yet vague use of such success terms is common in the research, clinical, and policy realms, with consequences that negatively (...) affect the care offered to individuals experiencing serious mental illness. A pragmatist-oriented solution to these problems suggests that when people use success terms, they need to explain and defend the goals and supporting values embedded in the terms, asking and answering the questions, “Effective at what? For whom? How effective? And why that goal?” Practical and epistemic standards for effectiveness will likely remain plural for good reasons, but each standard should be well explained and well justified. (shrink)