Family Systems Care ‒ Expert consensus on ethics behind committed practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ethically challenging situations often arise in interactions between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and families. Although the Calgary models offer guidance for practical work and are beneficial in various challenging situations, explicit awareness and recognition of the ethical concepts and theories underlying Family Systems Care (FSC) is generally lacking. Method - Research aim This study examined the basis of FSC in virtue ethics, deontology, and teleology. Research design Utilizing a qualitative design, an expert consensus was conducted through two focus group interviews, a Delphi group, and an expert panel. Participants and research context The expert consensus consisted of 23 professionals in FSC from various specialities, including nurses ( n = 18), midwives ( n = 4), and a general practitioner, who explored ethical considerations in clinical practice. Ethical considerations The research project was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of participants’ informed consent and the Declaration of Helsinki. Findings Participants recognized the significance of classical virtues such as faith, fortitude, hope, and caritas in FSC. They emphasized that these virtues not only guide HCPs in their practice but also empower families to rediscover their strengths amid suffering. Additionally, the integration of deontological principles and teleological perspectives highlighted the importance of balancing individual and collective well-being, and fostering compassionate relationships while navigating ethical complexities in therapeutic conversations. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of virtue ethics, deontology, and teleology in guiding HCPs’ moral reasoning within FSC. Participants emphasized respect and appreciation as essential values for maintaining trust with families during ethical challenges. By integrating ethical theories into practice, HCPs can navigate complex situations effectively, fostering compassionate and dignified care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".