Ethical case deliberation on the ward. A comparison of four methods.
The objective of this article is to analyse and compare four methods of ethical case deliberation. These include Clinical Pragmatism, The Nijmegen Method of ethical case deliberation, Hermeneutic dialogue, and Socratic dialogue. The origin of each method will be briefly sketched. Furthermore, the methods as well as the related protocols will be presented. Each method will then be evaluated against the background of those situations in which it is being used. The article aims to show that there is not one ideal method of ethical case deliberation, which fits to all possible kinds of moral problems. Rather, as each of the methods highlights a limited number of morally relevant aspects, each method has its strengths and weaknesses as well. These strengths and weaknesses should be evaluated in relation to different types of situations, for instance moral problems in treatment decisions, moral uneasiness and residue, and the like. The suggestion arrived at on the basis of the findings of this paper is a reasonable methodological plurality. This means that a method can be chosen depending on the type of moral problem to be deliberated upon. At the same time it means, that by means of a method, deliberation should be facilitated.
Steinkamp
Norbert
N
Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, University Medical Centre Nijmegen. n.steinkamp@efg.umcn.nl
Gordijn
Bert
B
D003142:Communication; D032882:Comprehension; D032921:Consensus; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics*; D033061:Ethics Consultation / Q000592:standards*; D026690:Ethics, Clinical; D004991:Ethics, Institutional; D006757:Hospital Units / Q000941:ethics*; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D008722:Methods; D028681:Moral Obligations; D010686:Philosophy, Medical