Background The aim of this study was to describe the kinds of ethical dilemmas surgeons face during practice. Methods Five male and five female surgeons at a University hospital in Norway were interviewed as part of a comprehensive investigation into the narratives of physicians and nurses about ethically difficult situations in surgical units. The transcribed interview texts were subjected to a phenomenological-hermeneutic interpretation. Results No gender differences were found in the kinds of ethical dilemmas identified among male and female surgeons. (...) The main finding was that surgeons experienced ethical dilemmas in deciding the right treatment in different situations. The dilemmas included starting or withholding treatment, continuing or withdrawing treatment, overtreatment, respecting the patients and meeting patients' expectations. The main focus in the narratives was on ethical dilemmas concerning the patients' well-being, treatment and care. The surgeons narrated about whether they should act according to their own convictions or according to the opinions of principal colleagues or colleagues from other departments. Handling incompetent colleagues was also seen as an ethical dilemma. Prioritization of limited resources and following social laws and regulations represented ethical dilemmas when they contradicted what the surgeons considered was in the patients' best interests. Conclusion The surgeons seemed confident in their professional role although the many ethical dilemmas they experienced in trying to meet the expectations of patients, colleagues and society also made them professionally and personally vulnerable. (shrink)

This paper provides a brief overview and critique of the dominant objectivist understanding and use of illness narrative in Enlightenment (scientific) medicine and ethics, as well as several revisionist accounts, which reflect the evolution of this approach. In light of certain limitations and difficulties endemic in the objectivist understanding of illness narrative, an alternative phronesis approach to medical ethics influenced by Charles Taylor’s account of the interpretive nature of human agency and language is examined. To this end, the account of (...) interpretive medical responsibility previously described by Schultz and Carnevale as "clinical phronesis" (based upon Taylor’s notion of "strong" or "radical evaluation") is reviewed and expanded. The thesis of this paper is that illness narrative has the ability to benefit patients as well as the potential to cause harm or iatrogenic effects. This benefit or harm is contingent upon how the story is told and understood. Consequently, these tales are not simply "nice stories," cathartic gestures, or mere supplements to scientific procedures and decision making, as suggested by the objectivist approach. Rather, they open the agent to meanings that provide a context for explanation and evaluation of illness episodes and therapeutic activities. This understanding provides indicators (guides) for right action. Hence, medical responsibility as clinical phronesis involves, first, the patient and provider’s coformulation and cointerpretation of what is going on in the patient’s illness narrative, and second, the patient and provider’s response to interpretation of the facts of illness and what they signify–not simply a response to the brute facts of illness, alone. The appeal to medical responsibility as clinical phronesis thus underscores the importance of getting the patient’s story of illness right. It is anticipated that further elaboration concerning the idea of clinical phronesis as interpretive illness narrative will provide a new foundation for medical ethics and decision making. (shrink)

In order to understand the lived experiences of physicians in clinical practice, we interviewed eleven expert, respected clinicians using a phenomenological interpretative methodology. We identified the essence of clinical practice as engagement. Engagement accounts for the daily routine of clinical work, as well as the necessity for the clinician to sometimes trespass common boundaries or limits. Personally engaged in the clinical situation, the clinician is able to create a space/time bubble within which the clinical encounter can unfold. Engagement provides an (...) account of clinical practice as a unitary lived experience. This stands in stark contrast to the prevailing notion, referred to as a dual discourse, that describes medicine as the addition of humanism to science. Drawing on Aristotle’s notion of phronesis and Sartre’s definition of the situation, we illustrate how this novel perspective entwines clinical practice, the person of the clinician, and the clinician’s situation. (shrink)

In this article, the nursing health history is revisited with a hermeneutic lens to uncover means by which this tool can better serve nursing practice. It is argued that further distanciation from the developmental and medical model is necessary to accurately uncover health and history in the nurse–client encounter. Based on the works of prominent hermeneutic philosophers, such as Heidegger, Gadamer, Merleau‐Ponty, Ricoeur, and Taylor, four orientations to health history and nursing are explored: orientation to caring, orientation to narrative, orientation (...) to time, and orientation to the body. The nursing health history is used as a vehicle for illuminating the usefulness of a hermeneutic perspective in everyday nursing practice. This article reveals views of health, history, and health history that are already known to nurses and the nursing milieu but are concealed by more dominant outlooks. The hermeneutical perspective presented in this article can help to reveal the important dimensions of everyday nursing practice and foster a richer attunement with the complex health experiences of individuals. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to analyse the contemporary ‘futility discourse’ from a constructivist perspective. I will argue that bioethics discourse typically disregards the con text from which controversies emerge and the processes that inform and constrain such discourse. Constructivists have argued that scientific knowledge is expressive of the dominant paradigm within which a scientific community is working. I will outline an analysis of ‘medical futility’ as a construction of biomedical and bioethical communities (and their respective paradigms). I will (...) trace the emergence and utilization of futility in the literature. My analysis of the context (i.e. the historical circumstances, the particular actors involved) within which the futility discourse emerged suggests that medical futility was constructed, in part, as a means of enhancing physician domination of a context wherein medical authority was threatened. The actors in this debate express widely divergent frameworks of ‘the good’, arguing from distinctive representations of moral agency. At times, this controversy has been argued from incommensurate moral horizons wherein the discussants debate incomparable problems. This discussion is related to a study of the ‘practice’ of futility in the clinical context. Further studies on the construction of bioethical problems are a necessary condition for supporting the truth claims of bioethical arguments. (shrink)