You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Ethical Theory, Ethnography, and Differences between Doctors and Nurses in Approaches to Patient Care
David W. Robertson
Journal of Medical Ethics
Vol. 22, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 292-299
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27717814
Page Count: 8
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Objectives—To study empirically whether ethical theory (from the mainstream principles-based, virtue-based, and feminist schools) usefully describes the approaches doctors and nurses take in everyday patient care. Design—Ethnographic methods: participant observation and interviews, the transcripts of which were analysed to identify themes in ethical approaches. Setting—A British old-age psychiatry ward. Participants—The more than 20 doctors and nurses on the ward. Results—Doctors and nurses on the ward differed in their conceptions of the principles of beneficence and respect for patient autonomy. Nurses shared with doctors a commitment to liberal and utilitarian conceptions of these principles, but also placed much greater weight on relationships and character virtues when expressing the same principles. Nurses also emphasised patient autonomy, while doctors were more likely to adovate beneficence, when the two principles conflicted. Conclusion—The study indicates that ethical theory can, contrary to the charges of certain critics, be relevant to everyday health care – if it (a) attends to social context and (b) is flexible enough to draw on various schools of theory.
Journal of Medical Ethics © 1996 BMJ