什么时候提供者应该推迟还是强加他们的观点?

Q3 Medicine Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1086/727439
Edmund G Howe
{"title":"什么时候提供者应该推迟还是强加他们的观点?","authors":"Edmund G Howe","doi":"10.1086/727439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractThis piece discusses perhaps the most agonizing ethical decision ethics consultants and other providers encounter. This is the extent to which providers should defer decisions to patients or to their proxy decision makers as opposed to imposing their own views as to what they think is ethically right. It discusses the most difficult issues these providers may encounter, especially when they wish to depart from authoritative bodies' standards or guidelines, and it presents initial steps providers may take to help patients and their families work together to resolve these dilemmas more harmoniously. It highlights how providers may inadvertently impose flawed biases on patients and families. Finally, it discusses how providers should take initiative with both parties to offer to help appeal when these avenues already exist and seek to establish the appellate procedures when they are absent.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"34 4","pages":"289-295"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Should Providers Defer versus Impose Their Views?\",\"authors\":\"Edmund G Howe\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/727439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>AbstractThis piece discusses perhaps the most agonizing ethical decision ethics consultants and other providers encounter. This is the extent to which providers should defer decisions to patients or to their proxy decision makers as opposed to imposing their own views as to what they think is ethically right. It discusses the most difficult issues these providers may encounter, especially when they wish to depart from authoritative bodies' standards or guidelines, and it presents initial steps providers may take to help patients and their families work together to resolve these dilemmas more harmoniously. It highlights how providers may inadvertently impose flawed biases on patients and families. Finally, it discusses how providers should take initiative with both parties to offer to help appeal when these avenues already exist and seek to establish the appellate procedures when they are absent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"289-295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/727439\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文讨论了伦理顾问和其他提供者可能遇到的最令人痛苦的伦理决策。这是医疗服务提供者应该将决定推迟给病人或他们的代理决策者的程度,而不是强加自己的观点,因为他们认为什么是道德上正确的。它讨论了这些提供者可能遇到的最困难的问题,特别是当他们希望偏离权威机构的标准或指导方针时,它提出了提供者可以采取的初步步骤,以帮助患者及其家属共同努力,更和谐地解决这些困境。它凸显了医疗服务提供者如何在不经意间将有缺陷的偏见强加给患者和家属。最后,它讨论了当这些途径已经存在时,提供者应如何主动与双方提出帮助上诉,并在这些途径不存在时寻求建立上诉程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
When Should Providers Defer versus Impose Their Views?

AbstractThis piece discusses perhaps the most agonizing ethical decision ethics consultants and other providers encounter. This is the extent to which providers should defer decisions to patients or to their proxy decision makers as opposed to imposing their own views as to what they think is ethically right. It discusses the most difficult issues these providers may encounter, especially when they wish to depart from authoritative bodies' standards or guidelines, and it presents initial steps providers may take to help patients and their families work together to resolve these dilemmas more harmoniously. It highlights how providers may inadvertently impose flawed biases on patients and families. Finally, it discusses how providers should take initiative with both parties to offer to help appeal when these avenues already exist and seek to establish the appellate procedures when they are absent.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
期刊最新文献
Dual Advocates in Deceased Organ Donation: The Potential for Moral Distress in Organ Procurement Organization Staff. Duty to Family: Ethical Considerations in the Resuscitation Bay. Home Birth in the United States: An Evidence-Based Ethical Analysis. How Should We Allocate Divisible Resources? An Overlooked Question. New Ways to Help Patients Worst Off.
×
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