Decisions at the end of life often result in conflicting opinions between medical and nursing professionals and the people concerned themselves. Especially when different beliefs and values clash, it can be difficult to understand each other's situation. Appropriate communication, with the necessary respect for the opinions and interests of other individuals, seems to be crucial here. However, if the person concerned is no longer able to express their own views on further treatment or possible withdrawal, support is often needed in the form of a surrogate decision maker, which poses specific challenges. This article deals with the ethically relevant difference between conscience and conscientiousness in the context of surrogate decision making. In the first step, due to the multitude of different views, it is shown what can be understood by conscience. By differentiating between building conscience, formation of conscience, and conscience conformity, a distinction is made between conscience and conscientiousness. In the second step, representatives are placed in relation to the concept established so far, and ethical implications are pointed out. The final step attempts not only to bring together the previous considerations and present suggestions for action but also to clarify common misunderstandings regarding the two terms. The ethical relevance of conscientiousness and the willingness of representatives to be open to other views on the one hand and to remain true to their own values on the other appear to be essential.
KlempererD. “Wem dient die Medizin wirklich?": Interessen, Zielkonflikte und Patientenwohl in der Klinik. In: FrewerABergemannLJägerC (eds) Interessen und Gewissen: Moralische Zielkonflikte in der Medizin. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2016, pp.27–50.
2.
BuchananAEBrockDW. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making. 1. publ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
3.
CohenCB. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making. Hastings Cent Rep1991; 21: 41–44.
4.
BergerJTDeRenzoEGSchwartzJ. Surrogate decision making: reconciling ethical theory and clinical practice. Ann Intern Med2008; 149: 48–53.
5.
SheaM. The ethics of choosing a surrogate decision maker when equal-priority surrogates disagree. Narrat Inq Bioeth2021; 11: 121–131.
6.
TorkeAMAlexanderGCLantosJ. Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. J Gen Intern Med2008; 23: 1514–1517.
7.
SulmasyDPSnyderL. Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA2010; 304: 1946–1947.
8.
LenkH. Gewissen und Verantwortung als Zuschreibungen. Z Philos Forsch1987; 41: 571–591.
9.
SymonsX. Conscientious objection in health care: why the professional duty argument is unconvincing. J Med Philos2022; 47: 549–557.
10.
RothhaarM. Das Gewissen in ethischen Fragen des Lebensendes: Überlegungen aus moralphilosophischer Perspektive. In: FrewerABergemannLJägerC (eds) Interessen und Gewissen: Moralische Zielkonflikte in der Medizin. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2016, pp.263–278.
11.
BeauchampTLChildressJF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed.New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
12.
GiubiliniA. Conscience. In: ZaltaENNodelmanU (eds) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2024 Edition). Winter 2016. Stanford, USA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016, pp.1–17.
13.
BoggTRobertsBW. The case for conscientiousness: evidence and implications for a personality trait marker of health and longevity. Ann Behav Med2013; 45: 278–288.
14.
van ScoyLJBlitonCFSmithT, et al.Intrinsic traits such as personality and decision-making style are predictive of stress in surrogate decision-makers. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2023; 40: 694–703.
15.
VerkadeMKarstenJKoenraadtF, et al.Conscience as a regulatory function: an integrative theory put to the test. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol2020; 64: 375–395.
16.
SymonsX. Why conscience matters: a theory of conscience and its relevance to conscientious objection in medicine. Res Publica2023; 29: 1–21.
17.
SulmasyDP. What is conscience and why is respect for it so important?Theor Med Bioeth2008; 29: 135–149.
18.
TuckNGlennLM. Cultivating conscience: moral neurohabilitation of adolescents and young adults with conduct and/or antisocial personality disorders. Bioethics2021; 35: 337–347.
19.
LarsenRRJalavaJGriffithsS. Are psychopathy checklist (PCL) psychopaths dangerous, untreatable, and without conscience? A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Psychol Public Policy Law2020; 26: 297–311.
20.
López-RomeroLCutrínOManeiroL, et al.Psychopathic traits in childhood: insights from parental warmth and fearless temperament via conscience development. Brain Sci2021; 11: 1–15.
21.
VujoševićM. Conscience as the rational deficit of psychopaths. Philos Psychol2015; 28: 1219–1240.
22.
GreenacreP. Conscience in the psychopath. Am J Orthopsychiatry1945; 15: 495–509.
23.
ErnstS. Grundfragen theologischer Ethik: Eine Einführung. München: Kösel, 2009.
24.
HübschS. Philosophie und Gewissen: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung des philosophischen Gewissensbegriffs. 1. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.
25.
HöffeO. Wirtschaftsbürger, Staatsbürger, Weltbürger: Politische Ethik im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. München: Beck, 2004.
26.
von AquinT. Summa theologica: Die deutsche Thomas-Ausgabe (Summa theologica). Übersetzt von Dominikanern und Benediktinern Deutschlands und Österreichs. Vollständige, ungekürzte dt.-lat. Ausgabe. Graz; Wien; Köln; Heidelberg; Salzburg: Pustet / Kerle / Styria, 1933.
27.
ForschnerM. Die Stoa als Quelle des philosophischen Gewissensbegriffs. In: BormannF-JWetzsteinV (eds) Gewissen: Dimensionen eines Grundbegriffs medizinischer Ethik. Eberhard Schockenhoff zum 60. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014, pp.156–167.
28.
HerzbergS. Die thomanische Deutung des Gewissens. In: BormannF-JWetzsteinV (eds) Gewissen: Dimensionen eines Grundbegriffs medizinischer Ethik. Eberhard Schockenhoff zum 60. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014, pp.189–208.
29.
KropfM. Spirituality and family caregivers: ethical considerations on the role as a spiritual guide. J Study Spiritual2024; 14: 156–168.
30.
LambCPesutB. Conscience and conscientious objection in nursing: a personalist bioethics approach. Nurs Ethics2021; 28: 1319–1328.
31.
PfeiferV. Didaktik des Ethikunterrichts: Bausteine einer integrativen Wertevermittlung. 3. Aufl. s.l.: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2013.
32.
KarpmanB. Conscience in the psychopath; another version. Am J Orthopsychiatry1948; 18: 455–491.
33.
HamlinJKWynnKBloomP. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature2007; 450: 557–559.
34.
CurranCE. Conscience in the light of the catholic moral tradition. In: CurranCE (eds) Conscience. New York: Paulist Press, 2004, pp.3–24.
35.
SepperE. Taking conscience seriously. Va Law Rev2012; 98: 1501–1576.
36.
LittleD. Conscience, theology, and the first amendment. Soundings: Interdiscip J1989; 72: 357–378.
ChildressJF. Appeals to conscience. Ethics1979; 89: 315–335.
39.
EmundtsD. Über Gewissen und Gewissheit. Dtsch Z Philos2016; 64: 495–521.
40.
DeutscherEthikrat. Mensch und Maschine - Herausforderungen durch künstliche Intelligenz: Stellungnahme. Berlin: Dt. Ethikrat, 2023.
41.
Nunner-WinklerG. Entwicklungspsychologischer Blick auf reife Urteilsfähigkeit und Gewissensentscheidungen. In: BormannF-JWetzsteinV (eds) Gewissen: Dimensionen eines Grundbegriffs medizinischer Ethik. Eberhard Schockenhoff zum 60. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014, pp.101–114.
42.
WesterG. Conscientious objection by health care professionals. Philos Compass2015; 10: 427–437.
43.
BuchbinderMLassiterDMercierR, et al.Reframing conscientious care: providing abortion care when law and conscience collide. Hastings Cent Rep2016; 46: 22–30.
44.
WicclairMR. Conscientious objection in medicine. Bioethics2000; 14: 205–227.
45.
LuhmannN. Die Gewissensfreiheit und das Gewissen. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts1965; 90: 257–286.
46.
KirchschlägerPG. Gewissen aus moraltheologischer Sicht. Z Kath Theol2017; 139: 152–177.
47.
FussP. Conscience. Ethics1964; 74: 111–120.
48.
WicclairMR. Conscientious objection in health care. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
49.
ShanawaniH. The challenges of conscientious objection in health care. J Relig Health2016; 55: 384–393.
50.
McGuireMC. On conscience. J Philos1963; 60: 253–263.
51.
KuklaR. Conscientious autonomy: displacing decisions in health care. Hastings Cent Rep2005; 35: 34–44.
52.
BeauchampTL. Informed consent. In: VeatchRM (eds) Medical ethics. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1989, pp.173–200.
53.
BergemannLJägerCFrewerA. Conflicting interests, rights and conscientious objection: why professionalism and vulnerability matter. In: FrewerABergemannLJägerC (eds) Interessen und Gewissen: Moralische Zielkonflikte in der Medizin. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2016, pp.311–317.
GajananM. Peacock’s Dr. Death is based on a chilling true crime podcast about a murderous surgeon. Here’s what to know, https://time.com/6080714/dr-death-true-story/ (2021, accessed 14 November 2024).
SuYYukiMHirayamaK. The experiences and perspectives of family surrogate decision-makers: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Patient Educ Couns2020; 103: 1070–1081.
62.
GreenleafBFoyAvan ScoyL. Relationships between personality traits and perceived stress in surrogate decision-makers of intensive care unit patients. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2023; 41: 664–672.
63.
SeifartCHeubelFSchmidhuberM, et al.Professionalität der Gesprächsbegleitenden und Freiwilligkeit der Teilnehmenden als ethische Herausforderungen von Advance Care Planning. Ethik Med2024; 36: 55–70.
64.
O'RourkeKDBrodeurD. Medical ethics: common ground for understanding. St. Louis: Catholic Health Association of the United States, 1989.
65.
In der SchmittenJRixenSMarckmannG. Advance care planning: ein Konzept zur Stärkung der Autonomie pflegebedürftiger Menschen (nicht nur) am Lebensende. In: JacobsKKuhlmeyAGreßS, et al. (eds) Pflege-report 2022. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2022, pp.83–102.
66.
MorrisonSRMeierDEArnoldRM. What's wrong with advance care planning?JAMA2021; 326: 1575–1576.
67.
FreyRHertwigRHerzogSM. Surrogate decision making: do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction?Med Decis Making2014; 34: 258–269.
68.
ButlerJMHirshbergELHopkinsRO, et al.Preliminary identification of coping profiles relevant to surrogate decision making in the ICU. PLoS One2016; 11: 1–16.
69.
Biller-AndornoN. Gerechtigkeit und Fürsorge: Zur Möglichkeit einer integrativen Medizinethik. Zugl.: Hagen, Fernuniv., Diss., 2000. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verl., 2001.
70.
CapronAM. Human experimentation. In: VeatchRM (ed) Medical ethics. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1989, pp.125–172.
71.
MayL. On conscience. Am Philos Q1983; 20: 57–67.
72.
Geddis-ReganAErringtonLAbleyC, et al.Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Health Expect2021; 24: 19–32.
73.
SpoljarDCurkovicMGastmansC, et al.Ethical content of expert recommendations for end-of-life decision-making in intensive care units: a systematic review. J Crit Care2020; 58: 10–19.
74.
HakimLNSantosoGATakwinB, et al.Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition. Cogent Psychol2021; 8: 1–17.
75.
JuthbergCErikssonSNorbergA, et al.Perceptions of conscience in relation to stress of conscience. Nurs Ethics2007; 14: 329–343.
76.
ShinkunasLAKlipowiczCJCarlisleEM. Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2020; 20: 1–14.
77.
TorkeAMFitchettGMaikoS, et al.The association of surrogate decision makers’ religious and spiritual beliefs with end-of-life decisions. J Pain Symptom Manage2020; 59: 261–269.
78.
KropfMSchmidhuberM. Family caregivers and the ethical relevance of moral identity. Nurs Inq2024; 31: 1–9.
