Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

The Standard Account of Moral Distress and Why We Should Keep It


McCarthy, Joan; Monteverde, Settimio (2018). The Standard Account of Moral Distress and Why We Should Keep It. Hec Forum, 30(4):319-328.

Abstract

In the last three decades, considerable theoretical and empirical research has been undertaken on the topic of moral distress among health professionals. Understood as a psychological and emotional response to the experience of moral wrongdoing, there is evidence to suggest that-if unaddressed-it contributes to staff demoralization, desensitization and burnout and, ultimately, to lower standards of patient safety and quality of care. However, more recently, the concept of moral distress has been subjected to important criticisms. Specifically, some authors argue that the standard account of moral distress elucidated by Jameton (AWHONN's Clin Issues Perinat Women's Health 4(4):542-551, 1984) does not refer to a discrete phenomenon and/or that it is not sufficiently broad and that this makes measuring its prevalence among health professionals, and other groups of workers, difficult if not impossible. In this paper, we defend the standard account of moral distress. We understand it as a concept that draws attention to the social, political and contextual determinants of moral agency and brings the emotional landscape of the moral realm to the fore. Given the increasing pressure on health professionals worldwide to meet efficiency, financial and corporate targets and reported adverse effects of these for the quality and safety of patient care, we believe that further empirical research that deploys the standard account moral distress is timely and important.

Abstract

In the last three decades, considerable theoretical and empirical research has been undertaken on the topic of moral distress among health professionals. Understood as a psychological and emotional response to the experience of moral wrongdoing, there is evidence to suggest that-if unaddressed-it contributes to staff demoralization, desensitization and burnout and, ultimately, to lower standards of patient safety and quality of care. However, more recently, the concept of moral distress has been subjected to important criticisms. Specifically, some authors argue that the standard account of moral distress elucidated by Jameton (AWHONN's Clin Issues Perinat Women's Health 4(4):542-551, 1984) does not refer to a discrete phenomenon and/or that it is not sufficiently broad and that this makes measuring its prevalence among health professionals, and other groups of workers, difficult if not impossible. In this paper, we defend the standard account of moral distress. We understand it as a concept that draws attention to the social, political and contextual determinants of moral agency and brings the emotional landscape of the moral realm to the fore. Given the increasing pressure on health professionals worldwide to meet efficiency, financial and corporate targets and reported adverse effects of these for the quality and safety of patient care, we believe that further empirical research that deploys the standard account moral distress is timely and important.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

4 downloads since deposited on 20 Dec 2018
4 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Health Policy, Issues, ethics and legal aspects, Health(social science)
Language:English
Date:1 December 2018
Deposited On:20 Dec 2018 09:19
Last Modified:01 Mar 2019 01:04
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0956-2737
OA Status:Green
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-018-9349-4
PubMed ID:29492756

Download

Download PDF  'The Standard Account of Moral Distress and Why We Should Keep It'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 152kB
View at publisher