Background:Adolescents’ health choices have been widely researched, but the ethical basis of these choices, namely their rights, duties, and responsibilities, have been disregarded and scale is required to measure these.Objective:To describe the development of a scale that measures adolescents’ rights, duties, and responsibilities in relation to health choices and document the preliminary scale testing.Research design:A multi-phase development method was used to construct the Health Rights Duties and Responsibilities ( HealthRDR) scale. The concepts and content were defined through document analysis, a (...) systematic literature review, and focus groups. The content validity and clarity of the items were evaluated by expert panel of 23 adolescents, school nurses, and researchers. We calculated the content validity index and the content validity ratio at on item and scale levels. Preliminary testing was conducted with 200 adolescents aged 15–16 years. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha correlation, and statistics for the item-analysis were calculated.Ethical considerations:Ethical approval and permission were obtained according to national legislation and responsible research practice was followed. Informed consent was obtained from the participants and the parents were informed about the study.Findings:The Health Rights Duties and Responsibilities scale comprises of four sub-scales with 148 items: 15 on health choices, 36 on rights, 47 on duties, and 50 on responsibilities. The items had a 0.93 content validity index and a 0.85 content validity ratio. Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient was 0.99 for the total scale and the individual sub-scales scores were health choices (0.93), rights (0.97), responsibilities (0.99), and duties (0.98).Discussion:The findings are discussed in light of the ethical concepts and validity and reliability of the developed scale.Conclusion:The Health Rights Duties and Responsibilities scale defines and understands adolescents’ rights, duties, and responsibilities in relation to health choices and has good content validity. Further testing and refinement of the concepts are needed. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to discuss the ethical issues impacting the phenomenon of patient safety and to present implications for nursing management. Previous knowledge of this perspective is fragmented. In this discussion, the main drivers are identified and formulated in ‘the ethical imperative’ of patient safety. Underlying values and principles are considered, with the aim of increasing their visibility for nurse managers’ decision-making. The contradictory nature of individual and utilitarian safety is identified as a challenge in nurse management (...) practice, together with the context of shared responsibility and identification of future challenges. As a conclusion, nurse managers play a strategic role in patient safety. Their role is to incorporate ethical values of patient safety into decision-making at all levels in an organization, and also to encourage clinical nurses to consider values in the provision of care to patients. Patient safety that is sensitive to ethics provides sustainable practice where the humanity and dignity of all stakeholders are respected. (shrink)

Patient’s duties are a topical but little researched area in nursing ethics. However, patient’s duties are closely connected to nursing practice in terms of autonomy, the best purpose of care and rethinking from the patient’s perspective. This article is a metasynthesis (N = 11 original articles) of patient’s duties, aimed to create a tentative model. In this article, a tentative model called ‘right-based duties of a patient’ was constructed. With its aid, a coherent structure of patient’s duties within different roles (...) and objects of a patient can be defined. In addition, the ethical basis, prerequisites, outcomes and risks of patient’s duties can be named. In conclusion, so-called right-based duties of a patient constitute the basic argument. Patient’s duties are not unambiguous for all patients, and the global perspective to duties has been challenged. However, due to both conceptual and practical reasons, rethinking of patient’s duties is needed. (shrink)

Rationale: In this article, I argue that we need a new perspective in the debate on autonomy in medicine, to understand many of the problems we face today – dilemmas that are situated at the intersection of autonomy and heteronomy, such as why well informed and autonomous people make unhealthy lifestyle choices. If people do not choose what they want, this is not simply caused by their lack of character or capability, but also by the fact that absolute autonomy is (...) impossible; autonomous individuals are ‘contaminated’ by heteronymous aspects, by influences from ‘outside’. Consequently, there are many good reasons to question the widely accepted hierarchical opposition of autonomy (progress) versus heteronomy (paternalism) in medicine. In an earlier article an analysis is made of the neologism ‘oughtonomy’ to support the thesis that when it comes down to human existence, autonomy and heteronomy are intertwined, rather than being merely opposites. Methods: In this article, I reflect upon how social conditions might improve our ‘choice architecture’, what Thaler & Sunstein have called ‘nudging’: how to change individual health choices without being paternalistic? I explore the extent to which both oughtonomy and nudging are able to challenge the question of autonomy in today’s medicine. Results and Conclusions: Autonomy may and should be a shared target in today’s medicine, but we should never forget that it is always intertwined with heteronomy. Starting from this perspective, progress in medicine demands far more than the increase of autonomy. (shrink)

For years now, autonomy has been discussed as one of the central values in health care. Understood as self-realization, it is opposed to paternalism which is conceived as an intolerable occurrence of heteronomy. Although different concepts have been developed to nuance this opposition, when it comes to health care discourse, heteronomy is still the enemy of autonomy. In our article, we defend the thesis that autonomy is only achievable as heteronomy. We are not arguing for an expansion of the meaning (...) of autonomy, but are attempting to conduct an analysis which lays bare the ‘disrupting’ attendance of heteronomy within the principle of autonomy. Autonomy does not begin where heteronomy ends, but can only begin if heteronomy is already involved. To emphasize this, we prefer to elaborate a new concept: ‘oughtonomy’. This concept is inspired by Jacques Derrida’s distinction between ‘difference’ and ‘differance’. We will develop the concept of oughtonomy from a deconstructive reading of Kant’s idea of autonomy, inspired by philosophers such as Jacob Rogozinski, Jean-Luc Nancy and others. In addition to a first exploration of this concept, this article also discusses the possible consequences of oughtonomy for current debates concerning health care. Our quest for a new understanding of autonomy is motivated by the concern that, although the accent on autonomy as self-realization and independence has many advantages, we should also bear in mind the countless disadvantages. (shrink)

In this article, we focus at a key concept of today’s healthcare, namely responsibility. Personal responsibility is so important today because it is obvious that the way society is organized, many people are facing a lot of difficulties to live their lives in a responsible way. We explicitly obtain an analysis of responsibility from a view which avoids the binary thinking which is so remarkably present in today’s health care discourse. The aim of this pilot study is therefore to open (...) up the horizon of the use of responsibility in today’s healthcare. We develop the notion of ‘co-responsibility’ to understand how individuals, despite the fact they are responsible for their own agency, are always also affected by an ought which contaminates their efforts to fulfill their duties and obligations. We discuss co-responsibility not as conclusion or a magic formula to all problems, but as a new starting point of which we have to explore the opportunities for current and future health care dilemmas. (shrink)

Lithuania was one of the first states in Europe to approve a comprehensive list of patients’ duties under a special Law on the Rights of Patients of 2010. The approval of the catalogue of patients’ duties at the level of a law is based on the restatement of the principle of equal rights of the parties participating in health care relations, and the prevention of consumerism in these relations. The paper distinguishes between general and special patients’ duties. The general duties (...) include the duty to exercise the patient’s rights in good faith, the ban to abuse them, the duties of cooperation and looking after one’s health, as well as the duty of treatment with due respect. The norms that entrench duties of ethical nature should serve to prevent any inappropriate behaviour of patients in health care institutions. Nevertheless, legal application of these provisions and proving the infringements in practice is likely to be complicated. The special duties include: the duty to familiarise oneself against signature with the internal regulations of the health care institution as presented to him or her, other documents prescribed by the health care institution; the duty to present the documents confirming identity; the duty upon receiving information about the health care services prescribed for him or her to confirm in writing his or her consent or refusal with regard to the provision of such health care services in the cases specified by the law; the duty to provide health care professionals with any information about one’s health, to follow the prescriptions and recommendations of health care professionals, to inform health care professionals about any deviations from the prescriptions or the prescribed treatment regime which he or she has accepted. The legal analysis of the contents of the duties has revealed certain unsubstantial obscurities. The analysis of the provision that enables to take sanctions against the patient infringing their duties has revealed that the health care institution may only terminate provision of health care services to the patient if one of the two alternative conditions is fulfilled. I.e. if a person violates his or her duties and thereby causes danger to their own and other patients’ health and life, or prevents them from receiving high quality health care services. The conclusions show that application of this provision may be problematic: first, due to the juridical technique of the wording of the norm; second – due to complicated substantiating that the patient prevented or prevents other patients from receiving high quality health care services; third – due to the conflict of this provision with the provision of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Medical Practice, which provides that a doctor may refuse provision of health care services in cases of real threat to his or her own life; and fourth – the norm does not provide for the right to terminate the provision of services in cases of threat to health and/or life of health care workers (non-specialists). (shrink)