MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2100872218 · doi:10.1016/s1526-9523(04)00109-6

Tomorrow's Ethics for Today's Practice

2004· article· en· W2100872218 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joyce Beebe Thompson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Midwifery & Women s Health · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueEthics in medical practice
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAutonomyHealth careEmbarrassmentPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyLawPsychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The new millennium, with its ever-increasing advances in information and biomedical technologies, can be a stressful time for women, their families, and those who provide health and illness care services. Public and private discussions are questioning the very foundations of what it means to be a moral agent or ethical person and how to promote a moral or ethical society where all have a positive right to a predetermined basic level of health and illness services. Should our society continue its support of the ethical concept of autonomy and individual self-determination—rights, without due consideration and balance of what is best for society as a whole?1 What about those individuals and families who are poor, disenfranchised or marginalized, and required to fend for themselves when it comes to health services that are a market commodity rather than a social “good” in the United States? Midwives and other women's health care practitioners know that our most vulnerable populations are women and children and that the United States is the only industrialized country that does not guarantee access to prenatal care and other childbearing services—an embarrassment for those committed to making pregnancy and birth safer for all women and their newborns.2 This home study issue focuses on everyday ethical concerns surrounding the health of women and services provided for women. The focus of this issue is continued learning in ethics for the experienced clinician. Our society is riding the crest of a new wave of technologies, including the human genome project, which is raising more questions than answers when it comes to understanding how the human body works. Everyday experiences of midwives and other health professionals working with women throughout their lives are addressed. Selected authors provide information on the need to know how to think through and process complex issues and how to make decisions that affect the very core values and rights of both women seeking health care and the professionals who serve them. We can no longer ignore the need to be competent in moral reasoning and ethical decision making, because ethical practice is the essential core of being a professional.3 Professional health care providers caring for women need to understand both the foundations of ethics (theory base) and the application of this understanding in daily practice (applied ethics). One of the goals of this home study on ethics is to encourage midwives and other health professionals to read, explore, discuss, and apply a new understanding of what it takes to be a professional today and tomorrow. The series of articles in this issue begins with foundational content: a human rights framework in midwifery practice is described in the first article by Joyce Thompson CNM, DrPH, also guest editor of the series. Rosemary Mann, CNM, JD, PhD, addresses the important interface of law and ethics in reproductive health, and Anne Thompson, RM, RN, MTD, provides a vital international perspective on the teaching of ethics. Judith Fullerton, CNM, PhD, and Georgia Sadler, PhD, MBA, focus on research ethics and the ethical implications of including women in clinical trials. Following this overview of ethics theory as applied to health care of women, the issue continues with a focus on the application of ethics in practice. Because communication and values clarification are essential components of the “how” to practice ethically, there is a large section of content on counseling—the what, how, why, and when of sharing information with clients in a variety of situations as well as the impact of that information sharing on women and their families. Margaret Commerford-Freda, EdD, RN, CHES, lays the groundwork on counseling techniques, and Marcia Van Riper, RN, PhD, and Wendy McKinnon, MS, CGC, address ethical concerns present in genetic testing and counseling for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Elena Gates, MD, focuses on risks and counseling related to prenatal testing, and Lisa Mitchell, PhD, describes Canadian women's experiences with unexpected ultrasound findings of fetal abnormalities or demise. This section on ethical concerns within reproductive health is completed by the article by Janet Singer, CNM, MSN, which addresses one of the more emotional and difficult ethical issues in the field: options counseling for women with unintended pregnancies. As the reader will realize, addressing ethics in daily practice is very complex and often difficult. Prenatal and labor care are among the most basic activities of midwives and are certainly areas requiring ethical decision making on a daily basis. The final section of this issue provides practical advice on how to analyze the ethical dimensions of one's practice using a prenatal case example analyzed by Deborah Narrigan, CNM, MSN, and an analysis of an ethical approach to the discussion and use of pain relief techniques during labor by Nancy Lowe, CNM, PhD. The final article is an invited commentary by Patricia Benner, RN, PhD, on the dangers of geneticism— what may be seen as the frontier of tomorrow's ethics. A brief disclaimer is indicated when it comes to producing this home study on ethics. When it comes to selecting the relevant content to be included in a limited publication, one is placed in a difficult position. There simply is not enough room to include everything needed to understand both the theoretical foundations (the “why” of ethics) as well as the application (the “how”) of moral reasoning and ethical decision making in clinical practice. The obvious gaps not covered in this issue of JMWH include ethics theory, values development and clarification, professional codes of moral behavior or conduct, and the ethics of health/public policy. The reader with limited knowledge of these is referred to the Resources for Clinicians column and the printed version of the International Confederation of Midwives' International Code of Ethics for Midwives (1999 revision) and the American Nurses Association Code for Nurses 2003. As this issue is going to press, the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) Code of Ethics for Midwives 1990 is under revision, considering some of the new ethical concerns raised by global attention to human rights, safer pregnancy and birth, and personal accountability in counseling women with ever-emerging genetic information. Everyday ethical concerns raised in midwifery (women's health) practice span the entire range of health care ethics. This includes one's decision in how much time to spend with a given woman/family in view of other responsibilities, how and what information to share to promote informed decision making, and how to resolve one's personal value conflicts when a woman asks for information or a service you cannot support. Maintaining confidentiality; understanding the rights, duties, and obligations of the professional; acknowledging client self-determination and responsibilities; conducting informed consent; and recognizing the interface of law and ethics in health care are but a few of the ethical issues that arise in the daily practice of midwives. I close with a request that the reader “listen” to the voices of women and families—their poignant stories—included in these articles, that you “hear” their concerns and the concerns of the midwives caring for and with them, and above all, that you “act” responsibly/ethically, following the moral code of the profession and principles of accountability that result from being a moral agent—a professional midwife—who knows, understands, and practices in an ethical manner at all times! These are exciting times for women and their health services, and it is hoped that this ethics home study will peak your interest in learning more about tomorrow's ethics for today's midwifery practice.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,029
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,153

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0290,042
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,057
Communication savante0,0150,011
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,029
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,194
Tête enseignante GPT0,577
Écart entre enseignants0,383 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Midwifery & Women s HealthMême sujetEthics in medical practiceTravaux en français237 207