首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Solicitude: balancing compassion and empowerment in a relational ethics of hope—an empirical-ethical study in palliative care
【2h】

Solicitude: balancing compassion and empowerment in a relational ethics of hope—an empirical-ethical study in palliative care

机译:关怀:在希望的关系伦理学中平衡同情心和赋权—姑息治疗中的经验伦理学研究

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 ethics of hope has often been understood as a conflict between duties: do not lie versus do not destroy hope. However, such a way of framing the ethics of hope may easily place healthcare professionals at the side of realism and patients at the side of (false) hope. That leaves unexamined relational dimensions of hope. The objective of this study was to describe a relational ethics of hope based on the perspectives of palliative care patients, their family members and their healthcare professionals. A qualitative longitudinal method based on narrative theories was used. Semi-structured interviews on hope were conducted with twenty-nine palliative care patients, nineteen friends or family members, and fifty-two healthcare professionals, which were recorded and transcribed. Data on hope were thematically analyzed. The researchers wrote memos and did member checking with participants. When participants spoke about hope, they referred to power and empowerment, like the powerful bonding of hope between patients and physicians. They also associated hope with the loss of hope and suffering. Several participating healthcare professionals tried to balance both sides, which involved acknowledgment of hope and suffering. Hope and power were reflected in the ethical concept of empowerment, whereas suffering and the loss of hope were reflected in the ethical concept of compassion. Empowerment and compassion can be balanced in solicitude. In conclusion, a relational ethics of hope requires solicitude, in which healthcare professionals are able to weigh empowerment and compassion within particular relationships.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11019-015-9642-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
机译:人们常常将希望伦理学理解为职责之间的冲突:不要说谎与不摧毁希望。但是,这种构筑希望伦理的方法很容易将医疗保健专业人员置于现实主义立场,而将患者置于(虚假)希望立场。这留下了希望的未经审查的关系维度。这项研究的目的是基于姑息治疗患者,他们的家庭成员和他们的医疗保健专业人员的观点来描述一种希望的关系伦理学。使用了基于叙事理论的定性纵向方法。对有希望的半结构化访谈是对29名姑息治疗患者,19位朋友或家人以及52位医疗保健专业人员进行了记录和转录。对希望的数据进行了专题分析。研究人员撰写了备忘录,并与参与者进行了成员核对。当参与者谈到希望时,他们指的是权力和赋权,例如患者和医生之间希望的强大纽带。他们还将希望与失去希望和痛苦联系在一起。几位参与其中的医疗专业人员试图平衡双方,这涉及对希望和痛苦的承认。希望和力量反映在授权的伦理观念中,而痛苦和希望的丧失反映在同情的伦理观念中。权能和同情心可以在友善之间取得平衡。总之,希望的关系伦理学需要谨慎,在这种关系中医疗保健专业人员能够权衡特定关系中的授权和同情心。电子补充材料本文的在线版本(doi:10.1007 / s11019-015-9642-9)包含补充材料,可供授权用户使用。

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