Addressing complex hospital discharge by cultivating the virtues of acknowledged dependence.

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s11017-020-09525-w
Annie B Friedrich
{"title":"Addressing complex hospital discharge by cultivating the virtues of acknowledged dependence.","authors":"Annie B Friedrich","doi":"10.1007/s11017-020-09525-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Every day around the country, patients are discharged from hospitals without difficulty, as the interests of the hospital and the patient tend to align: both the hospital and the patient want the patient to leave and go to a setting that will promote the patient's continued recovery. In some cases, however, this usually routine process does not go quite as smoothly. Patients may not want to leave the hospital, or they may insist on an unsafe discharge plan. In other cases, there may simply be no good place for the patient to go. These complex hospital discharge situations often involve ethical, legal, financial, and practical considerations, but the ethical issues inherent in these dilemmas have received only sporadic attention from clinical ethicists at best, leaving patients, providers, administrators, and caregivers unsure about what to do. When the ethical issues are in fact brought to light, analysis usually proceeds based on a consideration of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. However, principled analysis often fails to present patients and providers with a satisfactory solution, as the principles inevitably conflict (for example, when the patient's autonomous desire to remain in the hospital conflicts with the principles of beneficence and justice). In this paper, I argue that difficult discharges are ethical dilemmas worthy of scholarly attention that goes beyond principlism, and I argue that providers and those involved in discharge planning ought to cultivate what philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls \"virtues of acknowledged dependence\" in order to care for these patients and their families. I first trace the current conversation about difficult discharge and show that the principled approach to resolving discharge dilemmas is not sufficient. I then argue that a new approach is needed, and to that end, I offer practical ways in which MacIntyre's account of the virtues of acknowledged dependence may help patients, providers, and family members to navigate issues of difficult discharge.</p>","PeriodicalId":46703,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","volume":"41 2-3","pages":"99-114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11017-020-09525-w","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-020-09525-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Every day around the country, patients are discharged from hospitals without difficulty, as the interests of the hospital and the patient tend to align: both the hospital and the patient want the patient to leave and go to a setting that will promote the patient's continued recovery. In some cases, however, this usually routine process does not go quite as smoothly. Patients may not want to leave the hospital, or they may insist on an unsafe discharge plan. In other cases, there may simply be no good place for the patient to go. These complex hospital discharge situations often involve ethical, legal, financial, and practical considerations, but the ethical issues inherent in these dilemmas have received only sporadic attention from clinical ethicists at best, leaving patients, providers, administrators, and caregivers unsure about what to do. When the ethical issues are in fact brought to light, analysis usually proceeds based on a consideration of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. However, principled analysis often fails to present patients and providers with a satisfactory solution, as the principles inevitably conflict (for example, when the patient's autonomous desire to remain in the hospital conflicts with the principles of beneficence and justice). In this paper, I argue that difficult discharges are ethical dilemmas worthy of scholarly attention that goes beyond principlism, and I argue that providers and those involved in discharge planning ought to cultivate what philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls "virtues of acknowledged dependence" in order to care for these patients and their families. I first trace the current conversation about difficult discharge and show that the principled approach to resolving discharge dilemmas is not sufficient. I then argue that a new approach is needed, and to that end, I offer practical ways in which MacIntyre's account of the virtues of acknowledged dependence may help patients, providers, and family members to navigate issues of difficult discharge.

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
通过培养承认依赖的美德来解决复杂的出院问题。
在全国各地,每天都有患者轻松出院,因为医院和患者的利益趋于一致:医院和患者都希望患者离开医院,去一个能促进患者持续康复的环境。然而,在某些情况下,这个通常例行的过程并不那么顺利。病人可能不想离开医院,或者他们可能坚持一个不安全的出院计划。在其他情况下,可能根本没有病人可以去的好地方。这些复杂的出院情况通常涉及伦理、法律、财务和实际考虑,但这些困境中固有的伦理问题最多只得到临床伦理学家的零星关注,使患者、提供者、管理人员和护理人员不确定该怎么做。当伦理问题实际上被揭示出来时,分析通常是基于对自治、仁慈、无害和正义原则的考虑。然而,原则分析往往不能为患者和提供者提供满意的解决方案,因为原则不可避免地会发生冲突(例如,当患者希望留在医院的自主愿望与慈善和正义原则发生冲突时)。在这篇论文中,我认为困难的出院是值得学术关注的道德困境,超越了原则,我认为提供者和那些参与出院计划的人应该培养哲学家Alasdair MacIntyre所说的“承认依赖的美德”,以便照顾这些病人和他们的家人。我首先追溯了目前关于困难出院的谈话,并表明解决出院困境的原则方法是不够的。然后,我认为需要一种新的方法,为此,我提供了一些实用的方法,其中麦金泰尔关于公认的依赖的优点的描述可以帮助患者,提供者和家庭成员处理困难的出院问题。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: AIMS & SCOPE Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics examines clinical judgment and reasoning, medical concepts such as health and disease, the philosophical basis of medical science, and the philosophical ethics of health care and biomedical research Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is an international forum for interdisciplinary studies in the ethics of health care and in the philosophy and methodology of medical practice and biomedical research. Coverage in the philosophy of medicine includes the theoretical examination of clinical judgment and decision making; theories of health promotion and preventive care; the problems of medical language and knowledge acquisition; theory formation in medicine; analysis of the structure and dynamics of medical hypotheses and theories; discussion and clarification of basic medical concepts and issues; medical application of advanced methods in the philosophy of science, and the interplay between medicine and other scientific or social institutions. Coverage of ethics includes both clinical and research ethics, with an emphasis on underlying ethical theory rather than institutional or governmental policy analysis. All philosophical methods and orientations receive equal consideration. The journal pays particular attention to developing new methods and tools for analysis and understanding of the conceptual and ethical presuppositions of the medical sciences and health care processes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics publishes original scholarly articles, occasional special issues on important topics, and book reviews. Related subjects » Applied Ethics & Social Responsibility – Bioethics – Ethics – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science – Medical Ethics – Medicine – Philosophy – Philosophy of Medicine – Surgery
期刊最新文献
An ageless body does not imply transhumanism: A reply to Levin Risky first-in-human clinical trials on medically fragile persons: owning the moral cost Probability and informed consent. Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements. An account of medical treatment, with a preliminary account of medical conditions.
×
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