A Rationalist Critique of Sally Gadow’s Relational Nursing Ethics

Uche S. Odozor, H. Obilor, O. O. Thompson, Ngozi S. Odozor
{"title":"A Rationalist Critique of Sally Gadow’s Relational Nursing Ethics","authors":"Uche S. Odozor, H. Obilor, O. O. Thompson, Ngozi S. Odozor","doi":"10.4314/UJAH.V22I1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ethic of care proposed by Carol Gilligan in late twentieth century instantly elicited a wide range of adaptations and elaborations in numerous disciplines, under the banner of ‘relational ethics’. Sally Gadow’s ‘relational narrative’ is one of these adaptations. Like Gilligan, Gadow aims to dismantle ethical rationalism or universalism, wherein the foregoing mainstream nursing practice had purportedly focused on applying existing philosophical theories of ethics to all conceivable clinical situations. For Gadow, every moral engagement, such as that between a nursing professional and a patient, comes with inherent unique features that render impotent any attempt at universalisation. Each clinical encounter is rather defined by the ability of the professional to engage the client in an intimate, caring relationship that enables healing to take place. Against this backdrop, this paper argues that the theory of Relational Narrative, particularly as  conceptualised and articulated by Sally Gadow, cannot be carried through without making some rationalist assumptions, because professionalism in nursing practice is by definition, a deeply embedded ingredient of rational reflection. Furthermore, nursing professionals can make progress or impact only by having recourse to the code of ethics; also, direct application of Gadow’s theory puts the nurse in a dilemma when it comes to dealing with patients suffering from chronic contagious diseases, such as the Ebola or the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Finally, juxtaposing Gadow’s work with the ideas of the earlier scholars she criticises unsparingly, the paper found that traces of universalist, rationalist assumptions abound in her thought precisely because of the wealth of influence she has garnered from philosophers and psychologists; influences going as far back as Descartes and Kant, down to Rawls and Kohlberg. The data used for this study came from library and archival materials, as well as from internet resources. \n ","PeriodicalId":298106,"journal":{"name":"UJAH: Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UJAH: Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/UJAH.V22I1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ethic of care proposed by Carol Gilligan in late twentieth century instantly elicited a wide range of adaptations and elaborations in numerous disciplines, under the banner of ‘relational ethics’. Sally Gadow’s ‘relational narrative’ is one of these adaptations. Like Gilligan, Gadow aims to dismantle ethical rationalism or universalism, wherein the foregoing mainstream nursing practice had purportedly focused on applying existing philosophical theories of ethics to all conceivable clinical situations. For Gadow, every moral engagement, such as that between a nursing professional and a patient, comes with inherent unique features that render impotent any attempt at universalisation. Each clinical encounter is rather defined by the ability of the professional to engage the client in an intimate, caring relationship that enables healing to take place. Against this backdrop, this paper argues that the theory of Relational Narrative, particularly as  conceptualised and articulated by Sally Gadow, cannot be carried through without making some rationalist assumptions, because professionalism in nursing practice is by definition, a deeply embedded ingredient of rational reflection. Furthermore, nursing professionals can make progress or impact only by having recourse to the code of ethics; also, direct application of Gadow’s theory puts the nurse in a dilemma when it comes to dealing with patients suffering from chronic contagious diseases, such as the Ebola or the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Finally, juxtaposing Gadow’s work with the ideas of the earlier scholars she criticises unsparingly, the paper found that traces of universalist, rationalist assumptions abound in her thought precisely because of the wealth of influence she has garnered from philosophers and psychologists; influences going as far back as Descartes and Kant, down to Rawls and Kohlberg. The data used for this study came from library and archival materials, as well as from internet resources.  
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
莎莉·加朵关系护理伦理学的理性主义批判
卡罗尔·吉利根(Carol Gilligan)在20世纪后期提出的关怀伦理,在“关系伦理”的旗帜下,立即在众多学科中引起了广泛的适应和阐述。莎莉·加多的“关系叙事”就是其中一种改编。和Gilligan一样,Gadow的目标是拆除伦理理性主义或普遍主义,其中先前的主流护理实践据称专注于将现有的伦理学哲学理论应用于所有可想象的临床情况。对于Gadow来说,每一种道德约定,比如护理专业人员和病人之间的道德约定,都具有固有的独特性,使得任何试图普遍化的尝试都显得无能为力。每一次临床接触都是由专业人士的能力来定义的,即与客户建立一种亲密的、关怀的关系,从而使治疗发生。在此背景下,本文认为,关系叙事理论,特别是Sally Gadow概念化和阐述的理论,如果不做出一些理性主义假设,就无法进行下去,因为护理实践中的专业精神,从定义上讲,是理性反思的一个根深蒂固的成分。此外,护理专业人员只有依靠道德准则才能取得进展或产生影响;此外,直接应用加多的理论,护士在处理埃博拉病毒或冠状病毒病(COVID-19)等慢性传染病患者时,也会陷入两难境地。最后,将加朵的作品与她毫不留情地批评的早期学者的观点并列,论文发现,普遍主义和理性主义假设的痕迹在她的思想中比比皆是,正是因为她从哲学家和心理学家那里获得了丰富的影响;其影响可以追溯到笛卡尔和康德,一直到罗尔斯和科尔伯格。本研究使用的数据来自图书馆和档案资料,以及互联网资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Teilhardian Evolutionism: A philosophical reconsideration A discursive reading of ideology, dominance and resistance in political texts Translocation and migrants’ live-in experiences: A literary discourse on select novels Reminiscences of a legendary Nigerian art music composer and scholar, Dan Agu A government phonology analysis of assimilation in AnakỤ Igbo expressions: “ǹgịvụ” and “gbaa egbè”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1