scholarly journals The Role of Worldview in Moral Case Deliberation: Visions and Experiences of Group Facilitators

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benita Spronk ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Hans Alma
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Role Concerns

AbstractThis study investigates the role of worldview in moral case deliberation (MCD). MCD is a form of clinical ethics support which aims to assist caregivers in reflection on moral dilemmas, experienced in daily practice. Bioethicists acknowledge that existential and religious aspects must be taken into account in the analysis of ethical questions, but it remains unclear how these elements are addressed in clinical ethics support. We investigated how facilitators of MCD address worldview in MCD. MCD facilitation is often done by spiritual caregivers, but not in their role as spiritual caregiver. Discussing worldview is no standard part of the procedure in MCD. This study was qualitative, focusing on the views and experiences of the facilitators of MCD. Semi-structured interviews (N = 12) were conducted with facilitators of MCD. Grounded theory was used for analysis. The results show that worldview plays both an explicit and an implicit role in the MCD process. The explicit role concerns the religious beliefs of patients and professionals. This calls for avoiding stereotyping and devoting attention to different visions. The implicit role comes to the fore in addressing core values and spiritual fulfillment. In order to clarify the fundamental nature of values, more explicit attention for worldview might be useful during MCD. However, this should be done with caution as the term ‘worldview’ might be interpreted by participants in terms of religious and personal beliefs, rather than as an invitation to reflect on one’s view of the good life as a whole.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation - the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD)

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Svantesson ◽  
Jan Karlsson ◽  
Pierre Boitte ◽  
Jan Schildman ◽  
Linda Dauwerse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Evaluation Instrument ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case

Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork, Moral Action – Outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation in the Euro-MCD 2.0 For Evaluating Clinical Ethics Support

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 67-67
Author(s):  
Janine de Snoo-Trimp ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Moral Action ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Moral Competence ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Difficult Situations

"Background: For Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), like any form of Clinical ethics support (CES), it is important to know whether it reaches its presumed goal of supporting healthcare professionals in their ethical challenges. Evaluation is needed to gain insight in the value of MCD. Therefore, the Euro-MCD instrument was developed to assess outcomes of MCD, and has now been revised. The aim of this presentation is to present the revised Instrument: the Euro-MCD 2.0. Methods: The revision process was an iterative dialogue in which field study findings were integrated with theoretical reflections and expert-input. Results: The Euro-MCD 2.0 has three domains: 1) Moral Competence, 2) Moral Teamwork and 3) Moral Action. Moral Competence includes items on moral sensitivity, analytical skills and a virtuous attitude, like ‘I speak up in ethically difficult situations’. Moral Teamwork refers to open dialogue and supportive relationships, for example ‘We feel secure to share emotions in ethically difficult situations’. Moral Action includes items about moral decision-making and responsible care, like ‘We are able to explain and justify our care towards patients and their families’. Discussion: The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter and more strongly substantiated by empirical data and theoretical reflections. At the conference, we will reflect on the revision process and the underlying foundations of the domains. The revised instrument helps to get insight in the MCD related outcomes for healthcare professionals in their daily practice. Our research can further improve implementation of MCD and contribute to the research field of evaluation of CES in general. "

scholarly journals Emotions and Clinical Ethics Support. A Moral Inquiry into Emotions in Moral Case Deliberation

HEC Forum ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert Molewijk ◽  
Dick Kleinlugtenbelt ◽  
Scott M. Pugh ◽  
Guy Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Moral Inquiry ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case

Moral case deliberation

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Y B Tan ◽  
Bastiaan C ter Meulen ◽  
Albert Molewijk ◽  
Guy Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Support Services ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Moral Damage ◽  
Dilemma Method

Ethical dilemmas in general are characterised by a choice between two mutually excluding options neither of which is satisfactory, because there always will be a form of moral damage. Within the context of medicine several ethics support services have been developed to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethical dilemmas, including moral case deliberation. In this article, we describe how moral case deliberation works in daily practice, illustrated with a case example from the neurology ward. The article is meant as an introduction to moral case deliberation according to the dilemma method. We show its relevance to the clinic and the context needed to put it into practice.

Developing Organisational Diversity Statements through Dialogical Clinical Ethics Support: The Role of the Clinical Ethicist

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Author(s):  
Charlotte Kröger ◽  
◽  
Suzanne Metselaar ◽  
Bert Molewijk ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Good Care ◽  
Sexual Diversity ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Clinical Ethicist ◽  
Moral Perspective

"In increasingly pluralist societies, stakeholders in healthcare do not always share a common moral perspective on health, wellbeing or good care. Growing cultural, religious, and sexual diversity among both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) require healthcare organizations to address these differences and to engage in inclusive and equitable practices. Addressing diversity, however, comes with inherent moral challenges. For example, regarding how to deal with healthcare disparities between minoritized and majoritized patients. Additionally, increasing diversity in the workforce means that HCPs moral perspectives on ‘good care’ are diversifying. Developing diversity statements is an important strategy for healthcare organizations to define their normative ideas, values, and approaches to both care and diversity. To tackle concerns of exclusion and power differences, and to ensure that these statements reflect a common ground among HCPs, healthcare organizations ought to develop diversity statements in an inclusive and participatory way. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and interventions such as Socratic Dialogues can be employed to help healthcare organizations to do so. In this presentation, we (1) argue for taking a participatory approach when supporting healthcare organisations in developing diversity statements, (2) report both on the content and the process of developing a diversity statement through CES and Socratic Dialogues, and (3) maintain that CES that supports processes of joint reflection and learning among stakeholders can be used in such an approach. We will use a case example from practice to illustrate our point. We conclude with several recommendations regarding a participatory CES approach for developing diversity statements. "

scholarly journals Perceptions of important outcomes of moral case deliberations: a qualitative study among healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Weiner ◽  
Pernilla Pergert ◽  
Bert Molewijk ◽  
Anders Castor ◽  
Cecilia Bartholdson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Childhood Cancer ◽  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case

Abstract Background In childhood cancer care, healthcare professionals must deal with several difficult moral situations in clinical practice. Previous studies show that morally difficult challenges are related to decisions on treatment limitations, infringing on the child's integrity and growing autonomy, and interprofessional conflicts. Research also shows that healthcare professionals have expressed a need for clinical ethics support to help them deal with morally difficult situations. Moral case deliberations (MCDs) are one example of ethics support. The aim of this study was to describe the MCD-related outcomes that healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered important, before MCDs were implemented, in order to facilitate the implementation of MCDs in childhood cancer care in Sweden. Methods This study is based on qualitative data. Healthcare professionals, mostly representing registered nurses, nursing assistants and physicians, working at childhood cancer care centres in Sweden, were invited to respond to the translated and content validated European MCD Outcomes Instrument, before participating in regular MCDs. Answers to the main open-ended question, included in the questionnaire, was analysed according to systematic text condensation. Results Data was collected from 161 responses from the healthcare professionals. The responses included healthcare professionals’ perceptions of which MCD-related outcomes they found important for handling moral challenges. Three different themes of important outcomes from the analysis of the data are presented as follows: Interprofessional well-being in team interactions on a team level; Professional comfort when dealing with moral challenges on a personal level; and Improved quality of care for the child and the family on a care level. Conclusions Healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered it important that ethics support could enhance the well-being of interprofessional teams, support healthcare professionals on an individual level and improve quality of care. The results of this study can be used in current and future training for MCD-facilitators. When knowing the context specific important MCD-outcomes, the sessions could be adapted. Managers in childhood cancer care would benefit from knowing about the specific important outcomes for their target group because they could then create relevant working conditions for clinical ethics support.

scholarly journals Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: a legal update and future considerations

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107092
Author(s):  
Joe Brierley ◽  
David Archard ◽  
Emma Cave
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Street Hospital ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Great Ormond Street Hospital ◽  
Clinical Ethics Committee ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Clinical Ethics Committees

The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees (not to be confused with research ethics committees) has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X ([2020] EWHC 1958 (Fam), [21]–[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document