PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1556321

Differences in ethical decision-making processes among nurses and doctors.

R Grundstein-Amado
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The study reports results of an inquiry into the different patterns of ethical decision making used by doctors and nurses. The findings of the study are that nurses and doctors act out of different values, motivations and expectations and that there is a communication gap between them. Nurses place the highest value on the 'caring' perspective, which entails responsiveness and sensitivity to the patients' wishes. In contrast, the doctors value above all the patients' rights and the scientific approach that implies a major concern with disease and its cure. The study suggests that there is a need for the development of a new foundation, based on common professional attributes of the two groups, to which both groups are committed. This would provide a joint point of reference from which the two professions can solve shared ethical problems and would remove communication barriers.

Explore related subjects

BeneficenceCommunication BarriersDecision MakingEthical AnalysisEthical TheoryEthics, MedicalEthics, NursingInterprofessional RelationsMedical Staff, HospitalModels, PsychologicalMoral DevelopmentMotivationNursing Staff, HospitalPaternalismPatient RightsPersonal AutonomySet, PsychologySocial ValuesSurveys and QuestionnairesWithholding TreatmentBioethics and Professional EthicsEmpirical ApproachComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Grundstein-Amado. 1992. Differences in ethical decision-making processes among nurses and doctors.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01867.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

The 'four principles of bioethics' as found in 13th century Muslim scholar Mawlana's teachings.

BACKGROUND: There have been different ethical approaches to the issues in the history of philosophy. Two American philosophers Beachump and Childress formulated some ethical principles namely 'respect to autonomy', 'justice', 'beneficence' and 'non-maleficence'. These 'four principles' were presented by the authors as universal and applicable to any culture and society. Mawlana, a great figure in Sufi tradition, had written many books which not only guide people how to worship God to be close to Him, but also advise people how to lead a good life to enrich their personality, as well as to create a harmonious society and a peaceful world. METHODS: In this study we examined the major works of Mawlana to find out which of these 'four principles of bioethics' exist in Mawlana's ethical understanding. RESULTS: We have found in our study that all these principles exist in Mawlana's writings and philosophy in one form or another. CONCLUSIONS: We have concluded that, further to Beachump and Childress' claim that these principles are universal and applicable to any culture and society, these principles have always existed in different moral traditions in different ways, of which Mawlana's teaching might be presented as a good example.

Beneficence↗
PubMed2002

Pharmaceutical sales representatives and the doctor/patient relationship.

As marketing efforts by drug companies become more aggressive, physicians are being asked to provide clinical "preceptorships" to pharmaceutical sales representatives. During a "preceptorship" of this type, the company representative spends a day with the physician seeing patients "as an educational experience," and the physician receives an "honorarium" from the drug company in return. We explore the implications of this practice. First, we examine the nature of the doctor/patient relationship and the fiduciary obligations incumbent upon physicians in their role as healers. Second, we examine four interlocking ethical principles-nonmaleficence, beneficence, respect for patient autonomy, and justice-that should govern doctor/patient encounters. Third, we critique several hypothetical scenarios involving individuals who might put forth a claim to enter the doctor/patient relationship (ie, a pharmacist, a social scientist, the husband of the patient, and a pharmaceutical sales representative). We conclude that the practice of providing clinical "preceptorships" to pharmaceutical sales representatives is unjustifiable, is unethical, and should not be permitted.

Beneficence↗