In the operating theater, the micro-politics of practice, such as interpersonal communications, are central to patient safety and are intimately tied with values as well as knowledge and skills. Team communication is a shared and distributed work activity. In an era of "professionalism," that must now encompass "interprofessionalism," a virtue ethics framework is often invoked to inform practice choices, with reference to phronesis or practical wisdom. However, such a framework is typically cast in individualistic terms as a character trait, rather (...) than in terms of a distributed quality that may be constituted through intentionally collaborative practice, or is an emerging property of a complex, adaptive system. A virtue ethics approach is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a collaborative bioethics within the operating theater. There is also an ecological imperative - the patient's entry into the household (oikos) of the operating theater invokes the need for "hospitality" as a form of ethical practice. (shrink)

Professionalism requires that physicians uphold the best interests of patients while simultaneously insuring just use of health care resources. Current articulations of these obligations like the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Physician Charter do not reconcile how these obligations fit together when they conflict. This is the problem of dual agency. The most common ways of dealing with dual agency: “bunkering”—physicians act as though societal cost issues are not their problem; “bailing”—physicians assume that they are merely agents of society (...) and deliver care typically based on a strongly consequentialist public health ethic; or “balancing”—a vaguely specified attempt to uphold both patient welfare and societal need for judicious resource use simultaneously—all fail. Here I propose how the problem of dual agency might begin to be addressed with rigor and consistency. Without dealing with the dual agency problem and getting more specific about how to reconcile its norms when they conflict, the expectations of professionalism risk being written off as cute, nonbinding aphorisms from the medical profession. (shrink)

The notion of role morality suggests individuals may adopt a different morality depending on the roles they undertake. Investigating role morality is important, since the mentality of role morality may allow agents to believe they can abdicate moral responsibility when acting in a role. This is particularly significant in the literature dealing with professional morality where professionals, because of their special status, may find themselves at odds with their best moral judgments. Here I tell four stories and draw out some (...) distinctions. I conclude that role morality is a genuine and useful distinction. However, I suggest that the purported distinction between role morality and professional morality is over‐determined. Therefore, alleged conflicts between the demands of role and profession (such as the different pressures on Pinto designers as employees and as engineers) are not conflicts between different kinds of demands, but rather conflicts arising from divergent roles that most workers will encounter regularly. Another analytical perspective is to look at moral choices at work in terms of power and the ability to bring about change. Finally, I draw the implication that we should stress moral awareness at a fairly abstract level for all employees and reinforce the moral primacy of individual choice. (shrink)