Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Health Care Analysis 1/2011

01.03.2011 | Original Article

Justice and Proximity: Problems for an Ethics of Care

verfasst von: Marita Nordhaug, Per Nortvedt

Erschienen in: Health Care Analysis | Ausgabe 1/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This paper aims at addressing some questions considering the conflicting normative claims of partiality, i.e. to provide for the caring needs of the particular patient, and impartial claims of treating all patients with a relevant need equally. This ethical conflict between different conceptions of moral responsibilities within professional ethics relates to debates between an ethics of care and an ethics of justice. An ethics of care is a particularistic position that endorses some form of partiality, i.e. favouring persons to whom one stands in particular relationships. This paper argues that also a professional ethics must endorse some kind of partiality at the clinical level of health care. In fact, consideration of care for particular patients is a prerequisite for giving proper and attentive care towards the individual patient. This paper will discuss how partial concerns might be balanced against claims of distributive justice within the frame of the formal principle of justice. It is concluded that there is an urgent need for the recognition of the consequences of macro-level decisions for the possibility of the discharge of moral responsibility on a clinical level of health care. This would mean that health care institutions should adapt for the possibility of a basic standard of proper care and attention for the individual patient.
Fußnoten
1
Partiality is here understood as giving higher priority to the caring needs of those patients to whom the health care professional is either relationally or spatiotemporally close, than to those patients to whom the health care professional is not relationally or spatiotemporally close, everything else being equal.
 
2
The notions of ‘principle of formal justice’ and ‘material principle’ will be explained at page 12.
 
3
Agent-relative concerns are opposed to agent-neutral concerns, and are moral concerns that are related to the moral participant, his/her preferences, desires, and obligations. Agent-neutrality is most frequently explained in terms of agent-neutral reasons. Agent-neutral reasons can be described as follows: “If a reason can be given a general form which does not include an essential reference to the person who has it, it is an agent-neutral reason. For example, if it is a reason for anyone to do or want something that it would reduce the amount of wretchedness in the world, then that is a neutral reason” [12, pp. 152–153]. Agent neutrality is therefore an important aspect for impartiality, whereas agent relativity might provide reasons for particularism and partiality.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Applbaum, A. I. (1999). Ethics for adversaries: The morality of roles in public and professional life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Applbaum, A. I. (1999). Ethics for adversaries: The morality of roles in public and professional life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Blum, L. (1994). Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Blum, L. (1994). Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1071–1075.CrossRefPubMed Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1071–1075.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Feinberg, J. (1973). Social philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Feinberg, J. (1973). Social philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Førde, R., Pedersen, R., Nortvedt, P., & Aasland, O. G. (2006). Får eldreomsorgen nok ressurser? Tiddskrift for den Norske Lægeforening, 126(15), 1913–1916. (Norwegian). Førde, R., Pedersen, R., Nortvedt, P., & Aasland, O. G. (2006). Får eldreomsorgen nok ressurser? Tiddskrift for den Norske Lægeforening, 126(15), 1913–1916. (Norwegian).
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. London: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. London: Harvard University Press.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Goodin, R. E. (1985). Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Goodin, R. E. (1985). Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal. Political, and Global. New York: Oxford University Press. Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal. Political, and Global. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobs, F. (2005). Reasonable partiality in professional ethics: The moral division of labour. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 8(1/2), 141–154. Jacobs, F. (2005). Reasonable partiality in professional ethics: The moral division of labour. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 8(1/2), 141–154.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Koehn, D. (1994). The ground of professional ethics. London: Routledge. Koehn, D. (1994). The ground of professional ethics. London: Routledge.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Nagel, T. (1986). The view from Nowhere. New York: New York University Press. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from Nowhere. New York: New York University Press.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Nordhaug, M. (2004). Mellom omsorgshensyn og fordelingsrettferdighet: sykepleie i et prioriteringsetisk dilemma. (Nursing care and distributive justice—nursing in an ethical dilemma of priority). Master thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo (Norwegian). Nordhaug, M. (2004). Mellom omsorgshensyn og fordelingsrettferdighet: sykepleie i et prioriteringsetisk dilemma. (Nursing care and distributive justice—nursing in an ethical dilemma of priority). Master thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo (Norwegian).
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Nortvedt, P. (1996). Sensitive judgment: Nursing, moral philosophy and an ethics of c. Tano Aschehoug: Oslo. Nortvedt, P. (1996). Sensitive judgment: Nursing, moral philosophy and an ethics of c. Tano Aschehoug: Oslo.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Nortvedt, P. (2007). Care, sensitivity and “the moral point of view”. In C. Gastmans, K. Dierickx, H. Nys, & P. Schotsmans (Eds.), New pathways for European bioethics (pp. 81–97). Antwerpen: Intersentia. Nortvedt, P. (2007). Care, sensitivity and “the moral point of view”. In C. Gastmans, K. Dierickx, H. Nys, & P. Schotsmans (Eds.), New pathways for European bioethics (pp. 81–97). Antwerpen: Intersentia.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Nortvedt, P., & Nordhaug, M. (2008). The principle and problem of proximity in ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 156–161.CrossRefPubMed Nortvedt, P., & Nordhaug, M. (2008). The principle and problem of proximity in ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 156–161.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Nortvedt, P., Pedersen, R., Grøthe, K. H., Nordhaug, M., Kirkevold, M., Slettebø, Å., et al. (2008). Clinical prioritisations of healthcare for the aged—professional roles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 332–335.CrossRefPubMed Nortvedt, P., Pedersen, R., Grøthe, K. H., Nordhaug, M., Kirkevold, M., Slettebø, Å., et al. (2008). Clinical prioritisations of healthcare for the aged—professional roles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 332–335.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001). Virtue ethics and professional roles. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001). Virtue ethics and professional roles. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Pedersen, R., Nortvedt, P., Nordhaug, M., Slettebø, Å., Grøthe, K. H., Kirkevold, M., et al. (2008). In quest of justice? Clinical prioritisation in healthcare for the aged. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(4), 230–235.CrossRefPubMed Pedersen, R., Nortvedt, P., Nordhaug, M., Slettebø, Å., Grøthe, K. H., Kirkevold, M., et al. (2008). In quest of justice? Clinical prioritisation in healthcare for the aged. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(4), 230–235.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Pettersen, T. (2006). Omsorg som etisk teori. Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift, 2, 151–163. (Norwegian). Pettersen, T. (2006). Omsorg som etisk teori. Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift, 2, 151–163. (Norwegian).
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Pettersen, T. (2008). Comprehending care: Problems and possibilities in the ethics of care. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. Pettersen, T. (2008). Comprehending care: Problems and possibilities in the ethics of care. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Scheffler, S. (2001). Boundaries and allegiances: Problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Scheffler, S. (2001). Boundaries and allegiances: Problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams, B. (1973). Consequentialism and integrity. In J. J. C. Smart & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: for and against (pp. 82–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, B. (1973). Consequentialism and integrity. In J. J. C. Smart & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: for and against (pp. 82–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Woodward, V. (1999). Achieving moral health care: The challenge of patient partiality. Nursing Ethics, 6(5), 390–398.PubMed Woodward, V. (1999). Achieving moral health care: The challenge of patient partiality. Nursing Ethics, 6(5), 390–398.PubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Woolhead, G., Tadd, W., Boix-Ferrer, J. A., Krajcik, S., Schmid-Pfahler, B., Spjuth, B., et al. (2006). “Tu” or “Vous?” A European qualitative study of dignity and communication with older people in health and social care settings. Patients Education and Counseling, 61(3), 636–671. Woolhead, G., Tadd, W., Boix-Ferrer, J. A., Krajcik, S., Schmid-Pfahler, B., Spjuth, B., et al. (2006). “Tu” or “Vous?” A European qualitative study of dignity and communication with older people in health and social care settings. Patients Education and Counseling, 61(3), 636–671.
Metadaten
Titel
Justice and Proximity: Problems for an Ethics of Care
verfasst von
Marita Nordhaug
Per Nortvedt
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2011
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Health Care Analysis / Ausgabe 1/2011
Print ISSN: 1065-3058
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3394
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-010-0159-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2011

Health Care Analysis 1/2011 Zur Ausgabe