Background: There is little research comparing clinicians’ and managers’ views on priority settings in the healthcare services. During research on two different qualitative research projects on healthcare prioritisations, we found a striking difference on how hospital executive managers and clinical healthcare professionals talked about and understood prioritisations. Aim: The purpose of this study is to explore how healthcare professionals in mental healthcare and somatic medicine prioritise their care, to compare different ways of setting priorities among managers and clinicians and to (...) explore how moral dilemmas are balanced and reconciled. Research design and participants: We conducted qualitative observations, interviews and focus groups with medical doctors, nurses and other clinical members of the interdisciplinary team in both somatic medical and mental health wards in hospitals in Norway. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Ethical considerations: Basic ethical principles for research ethics were followed. The respondents signed an informed consent for participation. They were assured anonymity and confidentiality. The studies were approved by relevant ethics committees in line with the Helsinki Convention. Findings: Our findings showed a widening gap between the views of clinicians on one hand and managers on the other. Clinicians experienced a threat to their autonomy, to their professional ideals and to their desire to perform their job in a professional way. Prioritisations were a cause of constant concern and problematic decisions. Even though several managers understood and empathised with the clinicians, the ideals of patient flow and keeping budgets balanced were perceived as more important. Discussion: We discuss our findings in light of the moral challenges of patient-centred individual healthcare versus demands of distributive justice from healthcare management. Conclusion: The clinicians’ ideals of autonomy and good medical and nursing care for the individual patients were perceived as endangered. (shrink)

In this paper I introduce a theoretical framework on care developed by the Norwegian nurse and philosopher Kari Martinsen, and I argue that this approach has relevance not only within nursing, but also within clinical medicine. I try to substantiate this claim by analysing some of the key concepts in this approach, and I illustrate the potential clinical relevance of this approach by applying it in relation to two care scenarios. Finally, I discuss some of the concerns that have been (...) raised in relation to the aim of highlighting care in medicine. (shrink)

The paper argues that a particular version of moral realism constitutes an important basis for ethics in medicine and health care. Moral realism is the position that moral value is a part of the fabric of relational and interpersonal reality. But even though moral values are subject to human interpretations, they are not themselves the sole product of these interpretations. Moral values are not invented but discovered by the subject. Moral realism argues that values are open to perception and experience (...) and that moral subjectivity must be portrayed in how moral values are discovered and perceived by the human subject. Moral values may exist independent of the particular subject’s interpretative evaluations as a part of reality. This epistemological point about normativity is particularly significant in medical care and in health care. The clinician perceives moral value in the clinical encounter in a way that is important for competent clinical understanding. Clinical understanding in medical care and health care bears on the encounter with moral values in the direct and embodied relations to patients, with their experiences of illness and their vulnerabilities. Good clinical care is then partly conditioned upon adequate understanding of such moral realities. (shrink)

The ethics of care still appeals to many in spite of penetrating criticisms of it which have been presented over the past 15 years or so. This paper tries to offer an explanation for this, and then to critically engage with three versions of an ethics of care. The explanation consists firstly in the close affinities between nursing and care. The three versions identified below are by Gilligan (1982 ), a second by Tronto (1993 ), and a third by Gastmans (...) (2006 ), see also Little (1998 ). Each version is described and then subjected to criticism. It is concluded that where the ethics of care is presented in a distinctive way, it is at its least plausible; where it is stated in more plausible forms, it is not sufficiently distinct from nor superior to at least one other common approach to nursing ethics, namely the much-maligned 'four principles' approach. What is added by this paper to what is already known: as the article tries to explain, in spite of its being subjected to sustained criticism the ethics of care retains its appeal to many scholars. The paper tries to explain why, partly by distinguishing three different versions of an ethics of care. It is also shown that all three versions are beset with problems the least serious of which is distinctiveness from other approaches to moral problems in health care. (shrink)

The purpose of this study was to investigate nurses’ decisions about priorities in home-based nursing care. Qualitative research interviews were conducted with 17 nurses in home-based care. The interviews were analyzed and interpreted according to a hermeneutic methodology. Nurses describe clinical priorities in home-based care as rationing care to mind the gap between an extensive workload and staff shortages. By organizing home-based care according to tight time schedules, the nurses’ are able to provide care for as many patients as possible. (...) Furthermore, legal norms set boundaries for clinical priority decisions, resulting in marginalized care. Hence, rationing care jeopardizes important values in the nurse-patient relationship, in particular the value of individualized and inclusive nursing care. The findings are highly relevant for clinical practice, since they have major implications for provision of nursing care. They revive debates about the protection of values and standards of care, and nurses’ role and responsibility when resources are limited. (shrink)

Background: Nursing care is rapidly evolving due to the advanced technological and medical development, and also due to an increased focus on standardization and the logic of production, permeating today’s hospital cultures. Nursing is rooted in a holistic approach with an ethical obligation to maintain and respect the individual’s dignity and integrity. However, working within time limits and heavy workload leads to burnout and ethical insensitivity among nurses, and may challenge nurses’ options to act on the basis of ethical and (...) moral grounds in the individual care situation. Aim: The aim of this study is to describe and discuss ethical dilemmas described and experienced by nurses in clinical practice today. Method: The study was performed as a literature review following the matrix method allowing to synthesize literature across methodological approaches. A literature search was performed, including relevant studies published between 2011 and 2016. A total of 15 articles were included and analyzed focusing on their description of ethical dilemmas. Ethical consideration: We have considered and respected ethical conduct when performing a literature review, respecting authorship and referencing sources. Results: The analysis revealed three themes, relating to important aspects of nursing practice, such as the nurse–patient relationship, organizational structures, and collaboration with colleagues. The findings are summarized in the following three themes: (1) balancing harm and care, (2) work overload affecting quality, and (3) navigating in disagreement. Ethically difficult situations are evident across settings and in very diverse environments from neonatal care to caring for the older people. Organizational structures and being caught in-between professional values, standardization, and busyness was evident, revealing the complexity of nursing practice and the diversity of ethical dilemmas, concerns, and distress experienced by clinical nurses. Conclusion: Nursing practice is challenged by organizational structures and the development of the health care system, inhibiting nurses’ professional decision-making and forcing them to compromise basic nursing values. (shrink)

_Phenomenological insights into health issues relating to bodily self-experience, normality and deviance, self-alienation, and objectification._.

For more than 15 years Professor Per Nortvedt has been arguing the case for moral realism in nursing and the health‐care context more generally. His arguments focus on the clinical contexts of nursing and medicine and are supplemented by a series of persuasive examples. Following a description of moral realism, and the kinds of considerations that support it, criticisms of it are developed that seem persuasive. It is argued that our moral responses are explained by our beliefs as opposed to (...) moral realities. In particular, two key arguments presented by Nortvedt are challenged: the so‐called argument from convergence and the argument from clinical sensitivity. Both of these key planks in the case for moral realism are rejected, and an alternative ‘social conditioning’ account briefly sketched, which, it is claimed, has the same explanatory power as Nortvedt's thesis but does not rest on an appeal to independently existing moral properties. (shrink)

Nurse researchers engaged in qualitative interviews with patients and spouses in healthcare may often experience being in unforeseen ethical dilemmas. Researchers are guided by the bioethical principles of justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for human rights and respect for autonomy through the entire research process. However, these principles are not sufficient to prepare researchers for unanticipated ethical dilemmas related to qualitative research interviews. We describe and discuss ethically challenging and difficult moments embedded in two cases from our own phenomenological interview studies. (...) We argue that qualitative interviews involve navigation between being guided by bioethics as a researcher, being a therapist/nurse and being a fellow human being or even a friend. The researchers’ premises to react to unexpected situations and act in a sound ethical manner must be enhanced, and there is a need for an increased focus on the researchers’ ethical preparation and to continually address and discuss cases from their own interviews. (shrink)