Cargando…

How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research

Physicians, nurses, and other clinicians readily acknowledge being troubled by encounters with patients who trigger moral judgments. For decades social scientists have noted that moral judgment of patients is pervasive, occurring not only in egregious and criminal cases but also in everyday situatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Hill, Terry E
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20618947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-5-11
_version_ 1782184778361995264
author Hill, Terry E
author_facet Hill, Terry E
author_sort Hill, Terry E
collection PubMed
description Physicians, nurses, and other clinicians readily acknowledge being troubled by encounters with patients who trigger moral judgments. For decades social scientists have noted that moral judgment of patients is pervasive, occurring not only in egregious and criminal cases but also in everyday situations in which appraisals of patients' social worth and culpability are routine. There is scant literature, however, on the actual prevalence and dynamics of moral judgment in healthcare. The indirect evidence available suggests that moral appraisals function via a complex calculus that reflects variation in patient characteristics, clinician characteristics, task, and organizational factors. The full impact of moral judgment on healthcare relationships, patient outcomes, and clinicians' own well-being is yet unknown. The paucity of attention to moral judgment, despite its significance for patient-centered care, communication, empathy, professionalism, healthcare education, stereotyping, and outcome disparities, represents a blind spot that merits explanation and repair. New methodologies in social psychology and neuroscience have yielded models for how moral judgment operates in healthcare and how research in this area should proceed. Clinicians, educators, and researchers would do well to recognize both the legitimate and illegitimate moral appraisals that are apt to occur in healthcare settings.
format Text
id pubmed-2914676
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29146762010-08-04 How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research Hill, Terry E Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review Physicians, nurses, and other clinicians readily acknowledge being troubled by encounters with patients who trigger moral judgments. For decades social scientists have noted that moral judgment of patients is pervasive, occurring not only in egregious and criminal cases but also in everyday situations in which appraisals of patients' social worth and culpability are routine. There is scant literature, however, on the actual prevalence and dynamics of moral judgment in healthcare. The indirect evidence available suggests that moral appraisals function via a complex calculus that reflects variation in patient characteristics, clinician characteristics, task, and organizational factors. The full impact of moral judgment on healthcare relationships, patient outcomes, and clinicians' own well-being is yet unknown. The paucity of attention to moral judgment, despite its significance for patient-centered care, communication, empathy, professionalism, healthcare education, stereotyping, and outcome disparities, represents a blind spot that merits explanation and repair. New methodologies in social psychology and neuroscience have yielded models for how moral judgment operates in healthcare and how research in this area should proceed. Clinicians, educators, and researchers would do well to recognize both the legitimate and illegitimate moral appraisals that are apt to occur in healthcare settings. BioMed Central 2010-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC2914676/ /pubmed/20618947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-5-11 Text en Copyright ©2010 Hill; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Hill, Terry E
How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
title How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
title_full How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
title_fullStr How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
title_full_unstemmed How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
title_short How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
title_sort how clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20618947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-5-11
work_keys_str_mv AT hillterrye howcliniciansmakeoravoidmoraljudgmentsofpatientsimplicationsoftheevidenceforrelationshipsandresearch