Nursing codes of ethics and conduct are features of professional practice across the world, and in the UK, the regulator has recently consulted on and published a new code. Initially part of a professionalising agenda, nursing codes have recently come to represent a managerialist and disciplinary agenda and nursing can no longer be regarded as a self‐regulating profession. This paper argues that codes of ethics and codes of conduct are significantly different in form and function similar to the difference between (...) ethics and law in everyday life. Some codes successfully integrate these two functions within the same document, while others, principally the UK Code, conflate them resulting in an ambiguous document unable to fulfil its functions effectively. The paper analyses the differences between ethical‐codes and conduct‐codes by discussing titles, authorship, level, scope for disagreement, consequences of transgression, language and finally and possibly most importantly agent‐centeredness. It is argued that conduct‐codes cannot require nurses to be compassionate because compassion involves an emotional response. The concept of kindness provides a plausible alternative for conduct‐codes as it is possible to understand it solely in terms of acts. But if kindness is required in conduct‐codes, investigation and possible censure follows from its absence. Using examples it is argued that there are at last five possible accounts of the absence of kindness. As well as being potentially problematic for disciplinary panels, difficulty in understanding the features of blameworthy absence of kindness may challenge UK nurses who, following a recently introduced revalidation procedure, are required to reflect on their practice in relation to The Code. It is concluded that closer attention to metaethical concerns by code writers will better support the functions of their issuing organisations. (shrink)

This paper starts by introducing a tripartite conception of responsibility for health consisting of a moral agent having moral responsibilities and being held responsible, that is blamed, for failing to meet them and proceeds to a brief discussion of the nature of the blame, noting difficulties in agency and obligation when the concept is applied to health‐threatening behaviours. Insights about the obligations that we hold people to and the extent of their moral agency are revealed by interrogating our blaming behavior, (...) and to facilitate this, my own blaming attitudes and actions are analysed in respect of an imagined adult son who seeks thrills by jumping from a pier into the sea, an activity common around coastlines and intended to be analogous in varying degrees to a range of health‐threatening behaviours. I consider my responses to this imagined act in relation to some features of moralism, the excess of morality, concluding that blame can be justified when it is proportionate and within interpersonal relationships. There is evidence that some nurses hold negative blaming attitudes towards groups of patients considered to have caused or contributed to their illness, but this is not justified, not only because of impaired agency, but also because if there is responsibility for health, associated obligations are owed to those who share our lives, and it is those people who are entitled to hold individuals responsible. Nurses who hold negative blaming attitudes towards groups of patients are invited to identify the status of moral agency, the precise natures of their (failed) obligations, and of the patient–nurse relationship. It is concluded that reflection on these matters and the difference between justified blame and moralism demonstrates that blaming behaviour in the context of professional health care is built on nothing stronger than prejudice. (shrink)

The World Health Organisation encourages that blood donation becomes voluntary and unremunerated, a system already operated in the UK. Drawing on public documents and videos, this paper argues that blood donation is regarded and presented as altruistic and supererogatory. In advertisements, donation is presented as something undertaken for the benefit of others, a matter attracting considerable gratitude from recipients and the collecting organisation. It is argued that regarding blood donation as an act of supererogation is wrongheaded, and an alternative account (...) of blood donation as moral obligation is presented. Two arguments are offered in support of this position. First, the principle of beneficence, understood in a broad consequentialist framework obliges donation where the benefit to the recipient is large and the cost to the donor relatively small. This argument can be applied, with differing levels of normativity, to various acts of donation. Second, the wrongness of free riding requires individuals to contribute to collective systems from which they benefit. Alone and in combination these arguments present moral reasons for donation, recognised in communication strategies elsewhere. Research is required to evaluate the potential effects on donation of a campaign which presents blood donation as moral obligation, but of wider importance is the recognition that other-regarding considerations in relation to our own as well as others’ health result in a range not only of choices but also of obligations. (shrink)

Background:The theoretical framework of Jϋrgen Habermas suggests that effective communication requires competent participants with an objective attitude that complies with the rules and worlds designated as objective, social and subjective. This situation determines communicative action, which stimulates the search for mutual understanding and results in a process of interaction that promotes self-determination.Objectives:In this study, the discharge letters of patients with myocardial infarction were explored regarding the provision of information. The patient’s right to information and the duty of informing were analysed (...) according to the perspective of Jϋrgen Habermas.Research design:This was a cross-sectional analysis of all discharge letters that were directly related to nursing interventions regarding the provision of information to 106 patients. In this major study, the difficulties faced by patients who experienced a myocardial infarction and the changes in their lifestyles were analysed based on the type of information received.Ethical considerations:The hospital Ethics Committee approved the study, which complied with ethical principles and required informed consent.Findings:In the nursing letters, interventions related to the provision of information were conducted at an average of 3.59 interventions per patient. For 8.5% of the patients, however, no interventions related to the provision of information were performed. The most common area of information during hospitalisation was related to the management of signs and symptoms and applied to 90.6% patients.Discussion:The nursing interventions did not cover patient education, transition processes or awareness of the disease. Thus, the right to information can be questioned.Conclusion:Information is a right, and communication is extremely important. Health professionals should be aware of this importance regarding both care management and the satisfaction guarantee. The sharing of information by health professionals based on their competency is essential for patients to exercise their right to self-determination and decision-making. (shrink)

Background:Adolescents’ health choices have been widely researched, but the ethical basis of these choices, namely their rights, duties, and responsibilities, have been disregarded and scale is required to measure these.Objective:To describe the development of a scale that measures adolescents’ rights, duties, and responsibilities in relation to health choices and document the preliminary scale testing.Research design:A multi-phase development method was used to construct the Health Rights Duties and Responsibilities ( HealthRDR) scale. The concepts and content were defined through document analysis, a (...) systematic literature review, and focus groups. The content validity and clarity of the items were evaluated by expert panel of 23 adolescents, school nurses, and researchers. We calculated the content validity index and the content validity ratio at on item and scale levels. Preliminary testing was conducted with 200 adolescents aged 15–16 years. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha correlation, and statistics for the item-analysis were calculated.Ethical considerations:Ethical approval and permission were obtained according to national legislation and responsible research practice was followed. Informed consent was obtained from the participants and the parents were informed about the study.Findings:The Health Rights Duties and Responsibilities scale comprises of four sub-scales with 148 items: 15 on health choices, 36 on rights, 47 on duties, and 50 on responsibilities. The items had a 0.93 content validity index and a 0.85 content validity ratio. Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient was 0.99 for the total scale and the individual sub-scales scores were health choices (0.93), rights (0.97), responsibilities (0.99), and duties (0.98).Discussion:The findings are discussed in light of the ethical concepts and validity and reliability of the developed scale.Conclusion:The Health Rights Duties and Responsibilities scale defines and understands adolescents’ rights, duties, and responsibilities in relation to health choices and has good content validity. Further testing and refinement of the concepts are needed. (shrink)