首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Righteous Minds in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians
【2h】

Righteous Minds in Health Care: Measurement and Explanatory Value of Social Intuitionism in Accounting for the Moral Judgments in a Sample of U.S. Physicians

机译:卫生保健中的正念:社会直觉主义在衡量美国医师样品中的道德判断时的度量和解释价值

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The broad diversity in physicians’ judgments on controversial health care topics may reflect differences in religious characteristics, political ideologies, and moral intuitions. We tested an existing measure of moral intuitions in a new population (U.S. physicians) to assess its validity and to determine whether physicians’ moral intuitions correlate with their views on controversial health care topics as well as other known predictors of these intuitions such as political affiliation and religiosity. In 2009, we mailed an 8-page questionnaire to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties. The survey included the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ30), along with questions on physicians’ judgments about controversial health care topics including abortion and euthanasia (no moral objection, some moral objection, strong moral objection). A total of 1032 of 1895 (54%) physicians responded. Physicians’ overall mean moral foundations scores were 3.5 for harm, 3.3 for fairness, 2.8 for loyalty, 3.2 for authority, and 2.7 for sanctity on a 0–5 scale. Increasing levels of religious service attendance, having a more conservative political ideology, and higher sanctity scores remained the greatest positive predictors of respondents objecting to abortion (β = 0.12, 0.23, 0.14, respectively, each p<0.001) as well as euthanasia (β = 0.08, 0.17, and 0.17, respectively, each p<0.001), even after adjusting for demographics. Higher authority scores were also significantly negatively associated with objection to abortion (β = −0.12, p<0.01), but not euthanasia. These data suggest that the relative importance physicians place on the different categories of moral intuitions may predict differences in physicians’ judgments about morally controversial topics and may interrelate with ideology and religiosity. Further examination of the diversity in physicians’ moral intuitions may prove illustrative in describing and addressing moral differences that arise in medical practice.
机译:医师对有争议的医疗保健话题的判断差异很大,可能反映出宗教特征,政治意识形态和道德直觉上的差异。我们测试了新人群(美国医师)中道德直觉的现有量度,以评估其有效性并确定医师的道德直觉是否与他们对有争议的医疗保健主题以及这些直觉的其他已知预测因素(例如政治联系)的看法相关和宗教信仰。 2009年,我们邮寄了一份8页的调查问卷,随机抽取了2000名来自各个专业领域的在职美国医生。该调查包括道德基金会问卷(MFQ30),以及有关医师对包括流产和安乐死(无道德上的反对,某些道德上的反对,强烈的道德上的反对)的有争议的医疗保健话题的判断的问题。 1895年,共有1032位医生(54%)做出了回应。在0-5级上,医师的整体平均道德基础得分为:伤害3.5,公平3.3,忠诚2.8,权威3.2,神圣2.7。宗教服务出席率的提高,政治思想更加保守,圣洁度更高,仍然是反对堕胎的受访者的最大积极预测指标(分别为β= 0.12、0.23、0.14,每个p <0.001)和安乐死(β即使在调整了受众特征后,也分别= 0.08、0.17和0.17,每个p <0.001)。较高的权威分数也与反对堕胎显着负相关(β==-0.12,p <0.01),但与安乐死无关。这些数据表明,医师在道德直觉的不同类别上的相对重要性可能会预测医师对道德争议主题的判断存在差异,并且可能与意识形态和宗教信仰相互关联。进一步检查医生的道德直觉的多样性可能被证明可以说明和解决医学实践中出现的道德差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号