Abstract Studying a concept as complex as moral distress is an ongoing challenge for those engaged in empirical ethics research. Qualitative studies of nurses have illuminated the experience of moral distress and widened the contours of the concept, particularly in the area of root causes. This work has led to the current understanding that moral distress can arise from clinical situations, factors internal to the individual professional, and factors present in unit cultures, the institution, and the larger health care environment. (...) Corley et al. ( 2001 ) was the first to publish a quantitative measure of moral distress, and her scale has been adapted for use by others, including studies of other disciplines (Hamric and Blackhall 2007 ; Schwenzer and Wang 2006 ). Other scholars have proposed variations on Jameton’s core definition (Sporrong et al. 2006 , 2007 ), developing measures for related concepts such as moral sensitivity (Lutzen et al. 2006 ), ethics stress (Raines 2000 ), and stress of conscience (Glasberg et al. 2006 ). The lack of consistency and consensus on the definition of moral distress considerably complicates efforts to study it. Increased attention by researchers in disciplines other than nursing has taken different forms, some problematic. Cultural differences in the role of the nurse and understanding of actions that represent threats to moral integrity also challenge efforts to build a cohesive research-based understanding of the concept. In this paper, research efforts to date are reviewed. The importance of capturing root causes of moral distress in instruments, particularly those at unit and system levels, to allow for interventions to be appropriately targeted is highlighted. In addition, the issue of studying moral distress and interaction over time with moral residue is discussed. Promising recent work is described along with the potential these approaches open for research that can lead to interventions to decrease moral distress. Finally, opportunities for future research and study are identified, and recommendations for moving the research agenda forward are offered. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-11 DOI 10.1007/s10730-012-9177-x Authors Ann B. Hamric, School of Nursing, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 980567, Richmond, VA 23298-0567, USA Journal HEC Forum Online ISSN 1572-8498 Print ISSN 0956-2737. (shrink)

Although moral distress is now a well-recognized phenomenon among all of the healthcare professions, few evidence-based strategies have been published to address it. In morally distressing situations, the “presenting problem” may be a particular patient situation, but most often signals a deeper unit- or system-centered issue. This article describes one institution’s ongoing effort to address moral distress in its providers. We discuss the development and evaluation of the Moral Distress Consultation Service, an interprofessional, unit/system-oriented approach to addressing and ameliorating moral (...) distress. (shrink)

Ethics raises questions about what kind of society we ought to be, questions that are at the heart of this case. Increasingly, inequalities in healthcare fueled by lack of access, inadequate insurance coverage, and rising costs are creating dilemmas in the proper distribution of healthcare resources. Questions of distributing scarce and valuable resources are fundamentally questions of justice. The classic definition of justice is the duty to give to each person what they deserve and can legitimately claim so that justice (...) is understood as a moral obligation to help persons exercise their rights. Distributive justice, i.e., what distribution of resources is fair, equitable, and appropriate, thus turns on the concept of rights. One of the key questions in this case is whether and to what extent this patient has a right to treatment for his heart disease. In the classic understanding of justice, he must assert and we as a society must agree that he has a right to treatment for his heart condition before we are morally obligated to provide this care. Are there limits to this patient's right to healthcare? If so, what are they? The differing principles of distributive justice use different criteria to rank or weight decisions regarding the proper and just distribution of healthcare services. In this case, at least two competing but ethically valid principles can be identified: the humanitarian principle and the libertarian principle. (shrink)