| Autor: |
Lepping Peter, Carson Alexander M |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2009 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Vol 4, Iss 1, p 7 (2009) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1747-5341 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/1747-5341-4-7 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Psychiatric practice is often faced with complex situations that seem to pose serious moral dilemmas for practitioners. Methods for solving these dilemmas have included the development of more objective rules to guide the practitioner such as utilitarianism and deontology. A more modern variant on this objective model has been 'Principlism' where 4 mid level rules are used to help solve these complex problems. In opposition to this, there has recently been a focus on more subjective criteria for resolving complex moral dilemmas. In particular, virtue ethics has been posited as a more sensitive method for helping doctors to reason their way through difficult ethical issues. Here the focus is on the character traits of the practitioner. Bloch and Green advocated another way whereby more objective methods such as Principlism and virtue ethics are combined to produce what they considered sound moral reasoning in psychiatrists. This paper points out some difficulties with this approach and instead suggests that a better model of ethical judgment could be developed through the use of narratives or stories. This idea puts equal prima facie value on the patient's and the psychiatrist's version of the dilemma they are faced with. It has the potential to lead to a more genuine empathy and reflective decision-making. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
