The design and implementation of clinical ethics support is attracting increasing attention. Often, the characteristics and aims of clinical ethics support are translated into practice in a top-down, programmatic manner. These characteristics and aims then remain a constant feature of the clinical ethics support functions within the organisation. We argue that the characteristics of clinical ethics support should be reflected in the implementation strategy. Inspired by dialogical, pragmatic and hermeneutic perspectives on clinical ethics support in general and moral case deliberation in particular, we argue for a dialogical approach to implementing clinical ethics support, based on open, ongoing discussion with healthcare professionals about how they conceive (the aims of) clinical ethics support. Based on research and experience with various moral case deliberation implementation projects in mental healthcare, we present a theoretical framework for dialogical implementation and heuristic guidelines for implementing moral case deliberation in mental healthcare, which take into account the dialogical characteristics of moral case deliberation and some specific features of mental healthcare.
ParkerM. Genetics and the interpersonal elaboration of ethics. Theor Med Bioethics2001; 22: 451–459.
2.
Gracia, D. Moral deliberation. The role of methodologies in clinical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2001; 4: 223–232.
3.
Gracia, D. Ethical case deliberation and decision making. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 2003: 6: 227–233.
4.
Reiter-TheilSAgichGJ. Research on clinical ethics and consultation. Introduction to the theme. Med Health Care Philos2008; 11: 3–5.
5.
Reiter-TheilS. Dealing with the normative dimension in clinical ethics consultation. Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics2009; 18: 347–346.
6.
AbmaTABaurVEMolewijkAC. Inter-ethics. Towards an interactive and interdependent bioethics. Bioethics2010; 24: 242–255.
7.
WiddershovenGMolewijkBPhilosophical foundations of clinical ethics. A hermeneutic perspective. In: SchildmannGVollmannJ (eds). Clinical Ethics Consultation. Theories and Methods, Implementation, Evaluation, Farnham, Surray: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010, pp. 37–51.
8.
LindemannHVerkerkMWalkerM. Naturalized Bioethics. Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
9.
VerkerkMALindemannHMaeckelbergheE. Enhancing reflection. An interpersonal exercise in ethics education. Hastings Center Report2004; 34: 31–38.
10.
WalkerMUIntroduction: Groningen naturalism in bioethics. In: LindemannHVerkerkMWalkerM (eds). Naturalized Bioethics. Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 1–20.
11.
SvantessonMLöfmarkRThorsenH. Learning a way through ethical problems. Swedish nurses' and doctors' experiences from one model of ethics rounds. J Med Ethics2008; 34: 399–406.
12.
LillemoenLPedersenR. Ethics in municipal health services. Working systematically with, and developing competence in ethics. Clin Ethics2013; 8: 19–28.
13.
OlofssonB. Opening up. Psychiatric nurses’ experiences of participating in reflection groups focusing on the use of coercion. J Psychiatr Mental Health Nurs2005; 12: 259–267.
14.
MolewijkACAbmaTStolperM. Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. J Med Ethics2008; 34: 120–124.
15.
SteinkampNGordijnB. Ethical case deliberation on the ward. A comparison of four methods. Med Healthcare Philos2003; 6: 235–246.
16.
JacobsGMeijRTenwoldeH. Goed werk. Verkenningen van normatieve professionaliteit [Good Work. Explorations of Normative Professionalism], Assen: Van Gorcum, 2008.
17.
StolperMMolewijkBWiddershovenG. Learning by doing. Training health care professionals to become facilitators of moral case deliberation. HEC Forum2014; 27: 47–59.
18.
Manschot H and van Dartel H (eds). In gesprek over goede zorg. Overlegmethoden voor ethiek in de praktijk [Deliberating on Good Care. Conversation Methods for Ethics in Practice]. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgeverij, 2003.
19.
WeidemaFMolewijkAWiddershovenG. Enacting ethics. Bottom-up B. involvement in implementing moral case deliberation. Health Care Anal2012; 20: 1–19.
20.
van Dartel H and Molewijk B (eds). In gesprek blijven over goede zorg. Overlegmethoden voor moreel beraad [Keep on Deliberating on Good Care. Conversation Methods for Moral Case Deliberation]. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgeverij, 2014.
21.
DauwerseLStolperMWiddershovenG. Prevalence and characteristics of moral case deliberation in Dutch health care. Med Health Care Philos2014; 17: 365–375.
22.
SlowtherAJohnstonCHopeT. Development of clinical ethics committees. Br Med J2004; 328: 950–952.
23.
FørdeRPedersenR. Clinical ethics committees in Norway. What do they do and does it makes a difference?Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics2011; 20: 389–395.
24.
Reiter-TheilS. The Freiburg approach to ethics consultation. Process, outcome and competencies. J Med Ethics2001; 27: i21–i23.
25.
FoxEMyersSPearlmanRA. Ethics consultation in United States hospitals. A national survey. Am J Bioethics2007; 7: 13–25.
26.
American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Core Competencies Update Task Force. Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation. The Report of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, 2011.
27.
MolewijkBAhlzenR. Clinical ethics committee case 13: should the school doctor contact the mother of a 17-years old girl who has expressed suicidal thoughts?Clin Ethics2011; 6: 5–10.
28.
Bolt LLE, Verweij MF and van Delden JJM (eds). Ethiek in praktijk, [Ethics in Practice]. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003.
29.
GarciaD. Ethical case deliberation and decision making. Med Health Care Philos2003; 6: 227–233.
30.
DauwerseLWeidemaFAbmaT. Implicit and explicit clinical ethics support in the Netherlands. A mixed methods overview study. HEC Forum2014; 26: 95–109.
31.
Weidema F, Molewijk B, Kamsteeg F, et al. Managers’ views on and experiences with moral case deliberation in nursing teams. Nurs Manage 2015; 23:1067–1075.
32.
GoodpasterK. Conscience and Corporate Culture, Malden: MA Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
33.
SmithGEBarnesKJHarrisC. A learning approach to the ethical organization. Learn Org2014; 21: 113–125.
34.
RaesESDecyuperBLismontP. Facilitating team learning through transformational leadership. Instruct Sci2013; 41: 287–305.
TomlinsonJ. Exploration of transformational and distributed leadership. J Nurs Manage2012; 19: 30–34.
37.
NewmanKP. Transforming organizational culture through nursing shared governance. Nurs Clin North Am2011; 46: 45–58.
38.
CaldwellCVoelkerCDixonRD. Transformative leadership. An ethical stewardship model for healthcare. Org Ethics, Healthcare Business Policy2008; 4: 126–134.
39.
AtkinsonDBaileySSedenJ. The ‘morally active’ manager. Nurs Manage2003; 10: 31–34.
40.
Schippers MCC, West MA and Dawson JF. Team reflexivity and innovation. The moderating role of team context. J Manage 2012. doi: 10.1177/0149206312441210.
41.
GreeneJ. Dialogue in evaluation. A relational perspective. Evaluation2001; 7: 181–203.
42.
Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, et al. (eds). Improving Patient Care. The Implementation of Change in Health Care. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2013.
43.
JoseAThibodeauxMS. Institutionalisation of ethics. The perspective of managers. J Business Ethics1999; 22: 133–143.
44.
MartinM. Meaningful Work. Rethinking Professional Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
45.
WrightDBrightmanS. Relational and embodied knowing. Nursing ethics within the interprofessional team. Nurs Ethics2012; 18: 20–30.
46.
WeidemaF. Dialogue at work. Implementing moral case deliberation in a mental healthcare institution. Dissertation thesis, VUmc Amsterdam, Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers, 2014.
47.
SteinkampN. Ethical Deliberation in Health Care Organizations. Studies on Structures and Methods, Ede: Ponsen and Looijen, 2009.
48.
AbmaTMolewijkBWiddershovenG. Good care in ongoing dialogue. Improving the quality of care through moral deliberation and responsive evaluation. Health Care Anal2009; 17: 217–235.
49.
HabermasJ. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1 Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung [The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I.: Reason and the Rationalization of Society], Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1987.
50.
LegetCZorg als professie [Care as a profession]. In: SchermerMBoeninkMMeynenG (eds). Komt een filosoof bij de dokter [A Philosopher Visiting His GP], Amsterdam: Boom, 2013, pp. 219–232.
51.
de BreeMVeeningE. Handleiding moreel beraad. Praktische gids voor zorgprofessionals [Manual Moral Case Deliberation. Practical Guide for Healthcare Professionals], Assen: Van Gorcum, 2012.
52.
VerkerkMALindemannHEpilogue. Naturalized bioethics in practice. In: LindemannHVerkerkMWalkerM (eds). Naturalized Bioethics. Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 238–247.
53.
KittayEF. Love’s Labor. Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency, New York: Routledge, 1999.
54.
BenhabibSThe generalized and the concrete other. In: KittaEFMeyersDT (eds). Women and Moral Theory, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1987.
55.
LiegeoisA. Waarden in dialoog. Ethiek in de zorg. [Values in Dialogue. Ethics in Healthcare], Leuven: Lannoo Campus, 2009.
56.
van der ScheerLHermeneutische benadering: op zoek naar betekenissen [A hermeneutic approach: looking for meaning]. In: van DartelHMolewijkB (eds). In gesprek blijven over goede zorg. Overlegmethoden voor moreel beraad [Keep on Deliberating on Good Care. Conversation Methods for Moral Case Deliberation], Amsterdam: Boom Uitgeverij, 2014, pp. 155–170.
57.
WiddershovenGAbmaTMolewijkB. Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics2009; 23: 236–248.
58.
WeidemaFMolewijkBKamsteegF. Aims and harvest of moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics2013; 20: 617–631.
59.
MolewijkBVerkerkMMiliusH. Implementing moral case deliberation in a psychiatric hospital. Process and outcome. Med Health Care Philos2008; 11: 43–56.
60.
MolewijkBZadelhoffELendemeijerB. Implementing moral case deliberation in Dutch health care: improving moral competency of professionals and quality of care. Bioethica Forum2008; 1: 57–65.
61.
ErlenJA. Moral distress. A pervasive problem. Orthopaed Nurs2007; 20: 76–80.
62.
PruittBThomasP. Democratic Dialogue. A Handbook for Practitioners, Washington: GS/OAS, 2007.
63.
FrickerM. Powerlessness and social interpretation. J Social Epistemol2006; 3: 96–108.
64.
SchiefferA. Co-creative leadership. An integrated approach towards transformational leadership. Trans Stud Rev2006; 13: 607–623.
KarssingESpoorSIntegriteit 3.0. Naar een derde generatie integriteitsbeleid [Integrity 3.0. Towards a third generation policy on integrity]. In: KarssingEZweegersM (eds). Jaarboek Integriteit 2010, The Hague: Bureau Integriteitsbevordering Openbare Sector, 2010.
67.
Boog B, Slagter M, Jacobs Moonen I, et al. (eds). Focus op action research. De professional als handelingsonderzoeker [Focus on Action Research. The Professional as Action Researcher] Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005.
68.
ArgyrisC. On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
69.
SengePM. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1990.
70.
SchönD. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Profession, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
71.
RaelinJ. Dialogue and deliberation as expressions of democratic leadership in participatory organizational change. J Org Change Manage2012; 25: 7–23.
72.
WeidemaFCAbmaTAWiddershovenGAM. Client participation in moral case deliberation. A precarious relational balance. HEC Forum2011; 23: 207–224.
73.
RaddenJ. The Virtuous Psychiatrist: Character Ethics in Psychiatric Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
74.
BlochSGreenSA. Psychiatric Ethics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
75.
DickensonD. In Two Minds. A Case Book in Psychiatric Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
76.
Van DartelH. Moreel beraad in de context van de zorgorganisatie: een kwestie van passende logica’s [A contextual approach of Moral Case Deliberation in HCO’s: fitting logics?]. Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidszorg en Ethiek2008; 18: 62–66.
77.
Bamford-WadeAMossT. Transformational leadership and shared governance. An action study. J Nurs Manage2010; 18: 815–821.
78.
Tummers LG. Professionals zijn vervreemd van beleid [Professionals are alienated from policy]. Dissertation, Erasmus University, 2012.
79.
van DartelHJeurissenRProfessionaliteit als normatief organisatiekenmerk [Professionalism: a normative quality of organizations]. In: JacobsGMeijRTenwoldeH (eds). Goed werk. Verkenningen van normatieve professionaliteit [Good Work. Explorations of Normative Professionalism], Assen: Van Gorcum, 2008, pp. 252–266.
80.
KarssingE. Integriteit in de beroepspraktijk [Integrity in Professional Practice], Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006.
81.
SpencerEMMillsAERortyMV. Organization Ethics in Health Care, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
82.
Tarzian AJ, Wocial LD and the ASBH Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Committee. A code of ethics for healthcare ethics consultants. Journey to the present and implications for the field. Am J Bioethics 2015; 15: 38–51.
83.
FørdeRPedersenRAkreV. Clinicians' evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway. A qualitative study. Med Health Care Philos2008; 11: 17–25.
84.
PfäfflinMKobertKReiter-TheilS. Evaluating clinical ethics consultation. A European perspective. Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics2009; 18: 406–419.
85.
SchildmannJVollmannJEvaluation of clinical ethics consultation. A systematic review and critical appraisal of research methods and outcome criteria. In: SchildmannJGordonJVollmannJ (eds). Clinical Ethics Consultation: Theories – Methods – Evaluation, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishers, 2010, pp. 203–215.
86.
SvantessonMKarlssonJBoitteP. Outcomes of moral case deliberation. The development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD). BMC Med Ethics2014; 15: 11–30–11–30.
87.
PedersenPHurstSASchildmannJ. The development of a descriptive evaluation tool for clinical ethics case consultations. Clin Ethics2010; 5: 136–141.
88.
Schildmann J, Molewijk B, Benaroyo L, et al. Evaluation of clinical ethics support services and its normativity. J Med Ethics 2013; 39: 681–685.
89.
AbmaTA. Responsive evaluation in health promotion. Its value for ambiguous contexts. Health Prom Int2005; 20: 391–397.
90.
PlantingaMMolewijkBde BreeM. Training healthcare professionals as moral case deliberation facilitators. Evaluation of a Dutch training programme. J Med Ethics2012; 38: 630–635.
91.
LüdersC. Evaluation as practical hermeneutics, or the long and stony road from a theory of practice to evaluation practice. Review essay: Thomas A. Schwandt ‘Evaluation practice reconsidered’. Forum Qual Socialforschung2004; 5: Article 29–Article 29.
92.
van DartelHMolewijkBOp weg naar een integraal ethiekbeleid voor zorginstellingen. [Towards an integrated ethics policy for healthcare institutions]. In: van DartelHMolewijkB (eds). In gesprek blijven over goede zorg. Overlegmethoden voor moreel beraad [Keep on Deliberating on Good Care. Conversation Methods for Moral Case Deliberation], Amsterdam: Boom Uitgeverij, 2014.
