临床伦理与职业诚信:对《ASBH 守则》的评论

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1007/s10730-023-09516-z
{"title":"临床伦理与职业诚信:对《ASBH 守则》的评论","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10730-023-09516-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p><em>The Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants</em> instructs clinical ethics consultants to preserve their professional integrity by “not engaging in activities that involve giving an ethical justification or stamp of approval to practices they believe are inconsistent with agreed-upon standards” (ASBH, <span>2014</span>, p. 2). This instruction reflects a larger model of how to address value uncertainty and moral conflict in healthcare, and it brings up some intriguing and as yet unanswered questions—ones that the drafters of the <em>Code</em>, and the profession more broadly, should seek to address in upcoming revisions. The objective of this article is to raise these questions as a way of urging greater clarification of the <em>Code’s</em> overall approach to professional integrity, its meaning, and implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Ethics and Professional Integrity: A Comment on the ASBH Code\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10730-023-09516-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p><em>The Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants</em> instructs clinical ethics consultants to preserve their professional integrity by “not engaging in activities that involve giving an ethical justification or stamp of approval to practices they believe are inconsistent with agreed-upon standards” (ASBH, <span>2014</span>, p. 2). This instruction reflects a larger model of how to address value uncertainty and moral conflict in healthcare, and it brings up some intriguing and as yet unanswered questions—ones that the drafters of the <em>Code</em>, and the profession more broadly, should seek to address in upcoming revisions. The objective of this article is to raise these questions as a way of urging greater clarification of the <em>Code’s</em> overall approach to professional integrity, its meaning, and implications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hec Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hec Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-023-09516-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-023-09516-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 《医疗保健伦理顾问的伦理与职业责任守则》要求临床伦理顾问通过 "不参与涉及为他们认为不符合约定标准的做法提供伦理理由或盖章认可的活动"(ASBH, 2014, p.2)来维护其职业操守。这一指示反映了如何解决医疗保健中价值不确定性和道德冲突的更广泛模式,并提出了一些耐人寻味且尚未解答的问题--《规范》的起草者以及更广泛的医疗保健行业应在即将进行的修订中设法解决这些问题。本文旨在提出这些问题,以敦促进一步澄清《准则》对职业诚信的总体方针、其意义和影响。
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
Clinical Ethics and Professional Integrity: A Comment on the ASBH Code

Abstract

The Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants instructs clinical ethics consultants to preserve their professional integrity by “not engaging in activities that involve giving an ethical justification or stamp of approval to practices they believe are inconsistent with agreed-upon standards” (ASBH, 2014, p. 2). This instruction reflects a larger model of how to address value uncertainty and moral conflict in healthcare, and it brings up some intriguing and as yet unanswered questions—ones that the drafters of the Code, and the profession more broadly, should seek to address in upcoming revisions. The objective of this article is to raise these questions as a way of urging greater clarification of the Code’s overall approach to professional integrity, its meaning, and implications.

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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Positioning Ethics When Direct Patient Care is Prioritized: Experiences from Implementing Ethics Case Reflection Rounds in Childhood Cancer Care. An Ethics Consult Documentation Simplification Project: Summation of Participatory Processes, User Perceptions, and Subsequent Use Patterns. Survey of Moral Distress and Self-Awareness among Health Care Professionals. The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns. Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach.
×
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