Cargando…

“Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians

The broad diversity in physicians’ judgments on controversial health care topics may reflect differences in religious characteristics, political ideologies, and moral intuitions. We tested an existing measure of moral intuitions in a new population (U.S. physicians) to assess its validity and to det...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tilburt, Jon C., James, Katherine M., Jenkins, Sarah M., Antiel, Ryan M., Curlin, Farr A., Rasinski, Kenneth A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24023864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073379
_version_ 1782282922373414912
author Tilburt, Jon C.
James, Katherine M.
Jenkins, Sarah M.
Antiel, Ryan M.
Curlin, Farr A.
Rasinski, Kenneth A.
author_facet Tilburt, Jon C.
James, Katherine M.
Jenkins, Sarah M.
Antiel, Ryan M.
Curlin, Farr A.
Rasinski, Kenneth A.
author_sort Tilburt, Jon C.
collection PubMed
description The broad diversity in physicians’ judgments on controversial health care topics may reflect differences in religious characteristics, political ideologies, and moral intuitions. We tested an existing measure of moral intuitions in a new population (U.S. physicians) to assess its validity and to determine whether physicians’ moral intuitions correlate with their views on controversial health care topics as well as other known predictors of these intuitions such as political affiliation and religiosity. In 2009, we mailed an 8-page questionnaire to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties. The survey included the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ30), along with questions on physicians’ judgments about controversial health care topics including abortion and euthanasia (no moral objection, some moral objection, strong moral objection). A total of 1032 of 1895 (54%) physicians responded. Physicians’ overall mean moral foundations scores were 3.5 for harm, 3.3 for fairness, 2.8 for loyalty, 3.2 for authority, and 2.7 for sanctity on a 0–5 scale. Increasing levels of religious service attendance, having a more conservative political ideology, and higher sanctity scores remained the greatest positive predictors of respondents objecting to abortion (β = 0.12, 0.23, 0.14, respectively, each p<0.001) as well as euthanasia (β = 0.08, 0.17, and 0.17, respectively, each p<0.001), even after adjusting for demographics. Higher authority scores were also significantly negatively associated with objection to abortion (β = −0.12, p<0.01), but not euthanasia. These data suggest that the relative importance physicians place on the different categories of moral intuitions may predict differences in physicians’ judgments about morally controversial topics and may interrelate with ideology and religiosity. Further examination of the diversity in physicians’ moral intuitions may prove illustrative in describing and addressing moral differences that arise in medical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3762735
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37627352013-09-10 “Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians Tilburt, Jon C. James, Katherine M. Jenkins, Sarah M. Antiel, Ryan M. Curlin, Farr A. Rasinski, Kenneth A. PLoS One Research Article The broad diversity in physicians’ judgments on controversial health care topics may reflect differences in religious characteristics, political ideologies, and moral intuitions. We tested an existing measure of moral intuitions in a new population (U.S. physicians) to assess its validity and to determine whether physicians’ moral intuitions correlate with their views on controversial health care topics as well as other known predictors of these intuitions such as political affiliation and religiosity. In 2009, we mailed an 8-page questionnaire to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties. The survey included the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ30), along with questions on physicians’ judgments about controversial health care topics including abortion and euthanasia (no moral objection, some moral objection, strong moral objection). A total of 1032 of 1895 (54%) physicians responded. Physicians’ overall mean moral foundations scores were 3.5 for harm, 3.3 for fairness, 2.8 for loyalty, 3.2 for authority, and 2.7 for sanctity on a 0–5 scale. Increasing levels of religious service attendance, having a more conservative political ideology, and higher sanctity scores remained the greatest positive predictors of respondents objecting to abortion (β = 0.12, 0.23, 0.14, respectively, each p<0.001) as well as euthanasia (β = 0.08, 0.17, and 0.17, respectively, each p<0.001), even after adjusting for demographics. Higher authority scores were also significantly negatively associated with objection to abortion (β = −0.12, p<0.01), but not euthanasia. These data suggest that the relative importance physicians place on the different categories of moral intuitions may predict differences in physicians’ judgments about morally controversial topics and may interrelate with ideology and religiosity. Further examination of the diversity in physicians’ moral intuitions may prove illustrative in describing and addressing moral differences that arise in medical practice. Public Library of Science 2013-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3762735/ /pubmed/24023864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073379 Text en © 2013 Tilburt et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tilburt, Jon C.
James, Katherine M.
Jenkins, Sarah M.
Antiel, Ryan M.
Curlin, Farr A.
Rasinski, Kenneth A.
“Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
title “Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
title_full “Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
title_fullStr “Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
title_full_unstemmed “Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
title_short “Righteous Minds” in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
title_sort “righteous minds” in health care: measurement and explanatory value of social intuitionism in accounting for the moral judgments in a sample of u.s. physicians
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24023864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073379
work_keys_str_mv AT tilburtjonc righteousmindsinhealthcaremeasurementandexplanatoryvalueofsocialintuitionisminaccountingforthemoraljudgmentsinasampleofusphysicians
AT jameskatherinem righteousmindsinhealthcaremeasurementandexplanatoryvalueofsocialintuitionisminaccountingforthemoraljudgmentsinasampleofusphysicians
AT jenkinssarahm righteousmindsinhealthcaremeasurementandexplanatoryvalueofsocialintuitionisminaccountingforthemoraljudgmentsinasampleofusphysicians
AT antielryanm righteousmindsinhealthcaremeasurementandexplanatoryvalueofsocialintuitionisminaccountingforthemoraljudgmentsinasampleofusphysicians
AT curlinfarra righteousmindsinhealthcaremeasurementandexplanatoryvalueofsocialintuitionisminaccountingforthemoraljudgmentsinasampleofusphysicians
AT rasinskikennetha righteousmindsinhealthcaremeasurementandexplanatoryvalueofsocialintuitionisminaccountingforthemoraljudgmentsinasampleofusphysicians