How is clinical ethics reasoning done in practice? A review of the empirical literature.

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-12-15 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110569
Sharon Feldman, Lynn Gillam, Rosalind J McDougall, Clare Delany
{"title":"How is clinical ethics reasoning done in practice? A review of the empirical literature.","authors":"Sharon Feldman, Lynn Gillam, Rosalind J McDougall, Clare Delany","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical ethics reasoning is one of the unique contributions of clinical ethicists to healthcare, and is common to all models of clinical ethics support and methods of case analysis. Despite being a fundamental aspect of clinical ethics practice, the phenomenon of clinical ethics reasoning is not well understood. There are no formal definitions or models of clinical ethics reasoning, and it is unclear whether there is a shared understanding of this phenomenon among those who perform and encounter it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review of empirical literature was conducted across four databases in July 2024 to capture papers that shed light on how clinical ethicists undertake or facilitate clinical ethics reasoning in practice in individual patient cases. The review process was guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>16 publications were included in this review. These publications reveal four thinking strategies used to advance ethical thinking, and three strategies for resolving clinical ethics challenges in individual patient cases. The literature also highlights a number of other influences on clinical ethics reasoning in practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While this review has allowed us to start sketching the outlines of an account of clinical ethics reasoning in practice, the body of relevant literature is limited in quantity and in specificity. Further work is needed to better understand and evaluate the complex phenomenon of clinical ethics reasoning as it is done in clinical ethics practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"32-38"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110569","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical ethics reasoning is one of the unique contributions of clinical ethicists to healthcare, and is common to all models of clinical ethics support and methods of case analysis. Despite being a fundamental aspect of clinical ethics practice, the phenomenon of clinical ethics reasoning is not well understood. There are no formal definitions or models of clinical ethics reasoning, and it is unclear whether there is a shared understanding of this phenomenon among those who perform and encounter it.

Methods: A scoping review of empirical literature was conducted across four databases in July 2024 to capture papers that shed light on how clinical ethicists undertake or facilitate clinical ethics reasoning in practice in individual patient cases. The review process was guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews.

Results: 16 publications were included in this review. These publications reveal four thinking strategies used to advance ethical thinking, and three strategies for resolving clinical ethics challenges in individual patient cases. The literature also highlights a number of other influences on clinical ethics reasoning in practice.

Conclusion: While this review has allowed us to start sketching the outlines of an account of clinical ethics reasoning in practice, the body of relevant literature is limited in quantity and in specificity. Further work is needed to better understand and evaluate the complex phenomenon of clinical ethics reasoning as it is done in clinical ethics practice.

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
临床伦理推理在实践中是如何进行的?实证文献综述。
背景:临床伦理推理是临床伦理学家对医疗保健的独特贡献之一,是所有临床伦理支持模式和案例分析方法的共同特点。尽管临床伦理推理是临床伦理实践的一个基本方面,但人们对临床伦理推理现象的认识并不充分。临床伦理推理没有正式的定义或模型,也不清楚那些执行和遇到这种现象的人是否对这种现象有共同的理解。方法:在2024年7月对四个数据库的经验文献进行了范围审查,以获取阐明临床伦理学家如何在个别病例中进行或促进临床伦理学推理的论文。审查过程由Arksey和O'Malley框架指导,以确定审查的范围。结果:本综述共纳入16篇文献。这些出版物揭示了用于推进伦理思维的四种思维策略,以及解决个体病例中临床伦理挑战的三种策略。文献还强调了在实践中对临床伦理推理的一些其他影响。结论:虽然这篇综述使我们能够开始勾勒出临床伦理推理在实践中的轮廓,但相关文献的数量和特异性是有限的。为了更好地理解和评价临床伦理推理在临床伦理实践中的复杂现象,还需要进一步的工作。
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
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Beyond inconsistency: defending the moral boundary of the dead donor rule. Dead donor rule: death, dysfunction and bodily respect. Changing face of transplant medicine: can we do without the dead donor rule? Attention not consistency: why we need dead donor rule in a thick moral world. The dead donor rule is far from perfect, but context is key.
×
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:604180095
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