Nursing Philosophy最新文献

Canadian nursing practice has been profoundly influenced by the legalization of medical assistance in dying in 2016, requiring that nurses navigate new and sometimes highly challenging experiences. Findings from our longitudinal studies of nurses' experiences suggest that these include deep emotional responses to medical assistance in dying, an urgency in orchestrating the perfect death, and a high degree of relational impact, both professionally and personally. Here we propose a theoretical explanation for these experiences based upon a relational ontology. Drawing upon the work of Wildman, we understand a relational ontology to be one in which relationships are more fundamentally central than the conceptual entities that provide the context to practice. It is in a relationship that conceptual entities, and their affiliated values, are created and recreated. Seen as causal, relationships have ontological status, with important implications for how we consider the concepts of death, suffering, and time in this context. From a conceptual perspective, suffering is primarily self-defined based upon personal histories, time reflects the potential remaining until death, and death is primarily biological and amoral, although social discourses of a good and bad death surround the death trajectory. However, within a relational ontology of medical assistance in dying, these understandings shift. Death becomes primarily social rather than biological, suffering is shared, and time until death is now clearly delimited. Accordingly, nurses assume a profound responsibility for influencing outcomes that are authentically person-centered. These understandings provide important insights into nurses' experiences, enabling us to recognize the causal effects, both intended and unintended, of nurses' relational practices amidst the complexities of assisted death. Drawing on such a perspective, we find implications for how we provide spaces for nurses to reflect on, and have conversations about, their experiences with some of the greatest mysteries of life-death, suffering, and time.

This paper begins with the lived accounts of emergency and critical care medical interventions in which an unhoused person is brought to the emergency department in cardiac arrest. The case is a dramatised representation of the extent to which biopolitical forces via reduction to bare life through biopolitical and necropolitical operations are prominent influences in nursing and medical care. This paper draws on the scholarship of Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, and Achille Mbembe to offer a theoretical analysis of the power dynamics that influence the health care and death care of patients who are caught in the auspices of a neoliberal capitalist healthcare apparatus. This paper offers analysis of the overt displays of biopower over those individuals cast aside as generally unworthy of access to healthcare in a postcolonial capitalist system, in addition to the ways in which humans are reduced to 'bare life' in their dying days. We analyse this case study through Agamben's description of thanatopolitics, a 'regime of death', and the technologies that accompany the dying process, particularly in that of the homo sacer. Additionally, this paper illustrates the ways in which necropolitics and biopower are integral to understanding how the most advanced and expensive medical interventions make visible the political values of the healthcare system and how nurses and healthcare functions in these deathworlds. The purpose of this paper is to develop a greater understanding of biopolitical and necropolitical operations in acute and critical care environments, and to offer guidance to nurses in these spaces as they work to uphold ethical duties in a system that increasingly dehumanises.

This study explored tacit knowledge based on an expert nurse's practice who cares for stroke patients by using the hermeneutic phenomenological approach. The participant ('Ms. A') was a nursing researcher and college faculty member involved in the education of advanced practice nurses; her specialty was stroke rehabilitation nursing. She was asked to describe the meaning and value she gained from her memorable nursing experiences. Four interviews-approximately 1 h each-were conducted, and the associated data were interpreted together with the participant based on the method of interpretive circulation. Notably, the analysis was ended when a fusion of horizons was recognized. The participant recalled her nursing experiences based on six model cases. During the analysis, the following five elements were extracted: [belief in the ability of vulnerable people to survive]; [being together]; [respect for human dignity]; [preparedness to respond to and bear suffering together]; and [theoretical knowledge base approaches true understanding of patient experience]. Further, the nursing model-the Roy Adaptation Model-utilized by Ms. A in the process of recognizing humans as whole beings was deeply interpreted and implemented as a guideline for her implicit advanced practice. Moreover, her deep understanding and utilization of theoretical knowledge base also built the foundation for her implicit advanced practice. In conclusion, Ms. A's tacit knowledge and the elements support the process of tacit knowledge acquisition. Her narratives, hermeneutic attitude as an interpreter, and learning attitude throughout interaction with others will strongly help her knowledge development. We intend to continue the study with multiple participants and explore the structure of tacit knowledge possessed by advanced practitioners. Future endeavours will include the development of a tacit knowledge learning strategy.

The philosophy of Thomas Kuhn proposes that scientific progress involves periods of crisis and revolution in which previous paradigms are discarded and replaced. Revolutions in how mental health problems are conceptualised have had a substantial impact on the work of mental health nurses. However, despite numerous revolutions within the field of mental health, the biological paradigm has remained largely dominant within western healthcare, especially in orientating the understanding and treatment of psychosis. This paper utilises concepts drawn from the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn to explore the impact of what Kuhn terms 'anomalies' within the dominant biological paradigm: the anomaly of the meaningful utterance, the anomaly of complex aetiology and taxonomy and the anomaly of pharmacological inefficacy in recovery. The paper argues that the biological paradigm for understanding psychosis is in crisis and explores the implications for mental health nursing.

Nursing scholars continuously refine nursing knowledge and the philosophical foundations of nursing practice. They advance nursing knowledge by creating new knowledge and weighing the relevance of developments in cognate sciences. Nurse philosophers go further by providing epistemological and ontological arguments for explanations of nursing phenomena. In this article, I engage with Bender's arguments about why mechanisms should have more primacy as carriers of nursing knowledge. Despite the careful scholarship involved, Bender's arguments need to be more convincing. Accordingly, this article encourages debate about Bender's arguments for reorientating nursing science to mechanisms. I begin by suggesting that the claim that the theory-practice divide can be overcome by reorientating to mechanisms is acceptable only if we accept Bender's depiction of the challenge. Then I question the ontology Bender relies on to justify reorientating nursing science. After that, I argue that mechanisms in models that parallel analytical sociology undermine the kind of nursing science Bender advocates. I illustrate my arguments with a social mechanism thought experiment. Then I explain why Bender's arguments cannot escape the received view of science or inform emancipatory nursing action without theory. Finally, I mention some caveats and implications for nursing science.

Texts about theory in nursing often refer to theory construction by using inductive methods in a rigid way. In this paper, it is instead argued that theories are created, which is in line with most philosophers of science. Theory creation is regarded as a creative process that does not follow a specific method or logic. As in any creative endeavour, the inspiration for theory creation can come from many sources, including previous research and existing theory. The main idea put forward is that deductive qualitative research approaches should play a key role in theory creation. Furthermore, there is a need to differentiate between theory creation and theory justification. A model that emphasizes the creative aspects of theory creation and theory justification using qualitative approaches is presented. The model suggests that knowledge development is a deductive trial-and-error process where theory creation is followed by testing. Scientific theory creation and justification are presented as an iterative process that is deductive in that a testable hypothesis is derived from the theory. If the hypothesis is falsified, then the theory needs modification or might be altogether wrong. Several factors can block the creative process, both in theory development and in finding ways to test a theory in the justification phase. Some of these blockers are the idea of 'building blocks' and the inductive view of science often brought forward in nursing. Other blockers include striving for consensus and adherence to existing nursing philosophies and existing theories. Research and knowledge development are creative processes, and following predefined methods is not enough to ensure scientific rigour in qualitative nursing research.

My purpose in this short response to Clinton's interesting article On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science, which is published in this issue, is not to provide any counterargument to Clinton's interpretation of my own argument; readers are welcome to interrogate both articles at their leisure and make their own conclusions. What I will do instead is provide a brief critical assessment of my own (il)logic re bringing in the notion of mechanism as conceived by Machamer, Darden and Craver into an argument for models versus theories as a carrier of nursing knowledge.