Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Moral case deliberation is one form of clinical ethics support, and there seems to be different ways of facilitating the dialogue.

Purpose

This paper aimed to explore Swedish facilitators' experiences of their role in moral case deliberations.

Method

This study had a qualitative approach with explorative design. Semi-structured interviews with eleven MCD facilitators were conducted. Their experiences were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Result

Being a facilitator was understood through the metaphor of sailing: against the wind or with it. The role was likened to a sailor's set of skills: to promote security and well-being of the crew, to help crew navigate their moral reflections, to sail a course into the wind against homogeneity, to accommodate the crew's needs and just sail with the wind, and to steer towards a harbour with authority and expertise. Balancing the disparate roles of being accommodative and challenging may create a free space for emotions and ideas, including self-reflection and consideration of moral demands.

Conclusion

This research opens the question of whether all these skills can be taught through systematic training or whether facilitators need to possess the characteristics of being therapeutic, pedagogical, provocative, sensitive and authoritarian.

Keywords

Ethics clinical ethics ethics consultation moral case deliberation healthcare professionals

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

La Puma

Schiedermayer

. Ethics consultation: skills, roles, and training. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 155–160.

Aulisio

Arnold

Youngner

. Health care ethics consultation: nature, goals, and competencies: a position paper from the society for health and human values–society for bioethics consultation task force on standards for bioethics consultation. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 59–69.

Slowther

A-M

Hope

Ashcroft

. Clinical ethics committees: a worldwide development. J Med Ethics 2001; 27(suppl 1): i1–i1.

Molewijk

Abma

Stolper

et al.

Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 120–124.

Morgenstern

Richter

. Experiential learning in clinical ethics consultation. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2013; 22: 216–226.

Altisent

Martín-Espildora

Delgado-Marroquín

. Health care ethics consultation. Individual consultant or committee model?: pros and cons. Am J Bioeth 2013; 13: 25–27.

Rasoal

Kihlgren

James

et al.

What healthcare teams find ethically difficult captured in 70 moral case deliberations. Nurs Ethics 2016; 23: 825–837.

Molewijk B, Engerdahl IS and Pedersen R. Two years of moral case deliberations on the use of coercion in mental health care: which ethical challenges are being discussed by health care professionals? Clin Ethics 2016; 11: 87–96.

Stolper M, Molewijk B and Widdershoven G. Learning by doing. Training health care professionals to become facilitator of moral case deliberation. HEC Forum 2014; 27: 47–59.

10.

Svantesson

Karlsson

Boitte

et al.

Outcomes of moral case deliberation – the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD). BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 30–30.

11.

Bartholdson

Pergert

Helgesson

. Procedures for clinical ethics case reflections: an example from childhood cancer care. Clin Ethics 2014; 9: 87–95.

12.

Svantesson

Löfmark

Thorsén

et al.

Learning a way through ethical problems: Swedish nurses’ and doctors’ experiences from one model of ethics rounds. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 399–406.

13.

Hansson

. Imaginative ethics – bringing ethical praxis into sharper relief. Med Health Care Philos 2002; 5: 33–42.

14.

Patton

. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1990, pp. 532–532.

15.

Gale

Heath

Cameron

et al.

Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 117–117.

16.

Blumenberg

. Shipwreck with spectator: paradigm of a metaphor for existence, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.

17.

Løgstrup KE. The ethical demand (Vol. 109). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971, p.448.

18.

Levinas

. Otherwise than being or beyond essence, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1997, pp. 248–248.

19.

Molewijk

Kleinlugtenbelt

Widdershoven

. The role of emotions in moral case deliberation: theory, practice, and methodology. Bioethics 2011; 25: 383–393.

20.

Abma

Baur

Molewijk

et al.

Inter-ethics: towards an interactive and interdependent bioethics. Bioethics 2010; 24: 242–255.

21.

Weidema

Molewijk

Widdershoven

et al.

Enacting ethics: bottom-up involvement in implementing moral case deliberation. Health Care Anal 2012; 20: 1–19.

22.

Grönlund CF, Dahlqvist V, Zingmark K, et al. Managing ethical difficulties in healthcare: communicating in inter-professional clinical ethics support sessions. HEC Forum 2016; 28: 321–338.

23.

Lincoln

Guba

. Naturalistic inquiry, 1st ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1985, pp. 416–416.

24.

Corbin

Strauss

. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008.

‘It’s like sailing’ – Experiences of the role as facilitator during moral case deliberation

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Method

Result

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References