Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12):810-813 (2018)

Authors
Peter Ellerton
University of Queensland
Abstract
In recent decades, evidence-based medicine has become one of the foundations of clinical practice, making it necessary that healthcare practitioners develop keen critical appraisal skills for scientific papers. Worksheets to guide clinicians through this critical appraisal are often used in journal clubs, a key part of continuing medical education. A similar need is arising for health professionals to develop skills in the critical appraisal of medical ethics papers. Medicine is increasingly ethically complex, and there is a growing medical ethics literature that modern practitioners need to be able to use in their practice. In addition, clinical ethics services are commonplace in healthcare institutions, and the lion’s share of the work done by these services is done by clinicians in addition to their usual roles. Education to support this work is important. In this paper, we present a worksheet designed to help busy healthcare practitioners critically appraise ethics papers relevant to clinical practice. In the first section, we explain what is different about ethics papers. We then describe how to work through the steps in our critical appraisal worksheet: identifying the point at issue; scrutinising definitions; dissecting the arguments presented; considering counterarguments; and finally deciding on relevance. Working through this reflective worksheet will help healthcare practitioners to use the ethics literature effectively in clinical practice. We also intend it to be a shared evaluative tool that can form the basis of professional discussion such as at ethics journal clubs. Practising these critical reasoning skills will also increase practitioners’ capacity to think through difficult ethical decisions in daily clinical practice.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2018-104997
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,740
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reading or Scanning? A Study of Newspaper and Net Paper Reading.Kenneth Holmqvist, Jana Holsanova, Maria Barthelson & Daniel Lundqvist - 2003 - In J. R. In Hyönä & H. Deubel (eds.), The mind's eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. pp. 657 - 670.
The Power of Words.Colin Radford - 1993 - Philosophy 68 (265):325 - 342.
Judith Butler and an Ethics of Humanization.Hülya Şimga - 2014 - Dialogue and Universalism 24 (3):166-173.
No Ethical Issues in Economics?Stuart Birks - 2013 - Economic Thought 2 (1).
Corrigenda.L. J. Russell - 1952 - Mind 61 (241):136-136.
Corrigenda.T. D. Goodell - 1915 - Classical Quarterly 9 (02):71-.
Corrigenda: Theology and Tragedy.[author unknown] - 1967 - Religious Studies 3 (1):432-432.
Negotiating the Familiar and the Strange in Aztec Ethics.Kay A. Read - 1987 - Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (1):2 - 13.
Can We Inhabit the Moral Universe of Dante's Divine Comedy?Brian Horne - 2003 - Studies in Christian Ethics 16 (1):61-71.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-10-04

Total views
18 ( #594,934 of 2,462,888 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,363 of 2,462,888 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes