ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2018
Relational autonomy in the care of the vulnerable: health care professionals' reasoning in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD).
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Perspectives on Blended Internet-Based and Face-to-Face Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol Use Disorder: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Third-Party Consent To Medical Treatment in Malaysia: A Critical Analysis from Ethical and Malaysian Legal Perspectives.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Use of Coercion or Persuasion in Prehospital Treatment in the Region of Southern Denmark: A Retrospective Study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- A Patient-Centered Ethical Framework for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Care: Communication, Trust, Nutrition-Sensitive Care, and Self-Management.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Harnessing Medical Bioethics Mediation to Advance One Health Governance.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Practical approaches to the tasks of preserving autonomy and respecting vulnerability among critically ill adult patients: a narrative review.Critical care science · 2025Review
- What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024Article
- Illuminating Medical Education Through Moral Case Deliberations: A Narrative Review.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Review
- Introducing Mechanically Assisted Cough for Patients With Progressive Neurological Disease: Patient-Physical Therapist Interaction and Physical Therapist Perspective.Physical therapy · 2024Article
- Comparing attitudes towards compulsory interventions in severe and persistent mental illness among psychiatrists in India and Switzerland.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Colombian Adolescents' Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: The Need for a Relational Autonomy Approach.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Barriers to and enablers of the promotion of patient and family participation in primary healthcare nursing in Brazil, Germany and Spain: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Two years of ethics reflection groups about coercion in psychiatry. Measuring variation within employees' normative attitudes, user involvement and the handling of disagreement.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
- Ethical challenges in end-stage dementia: Perspectives of professionals and family care-givers.Nursing ethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), healthcare professionals discuss ethically difficult patient situations in their daily practice. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the content of MCD and there is a need to shed light on this ethical reflection in the midst of clinical practice. Thus, the aim of the study was to describe the content of healthcare professionals' moral reasoning during MCD. The design was qualitative and descriptive, and data consisted of 22 audio-recorded inter-professional MCDs, analysed with content analysis. The moral reasoning centred on how to strike the balance between personal convictions about what constitutes good care, and the perceived dissonant care preferences held by the patient. The healthcare professionals deliberated about good care in relation to demands considered to be unrealistic, justifications for influencing the patient, the incapacitated patient's nebulous interests, and coping with the conflict between using coercion to achieve good while protecting human dignity. Furthermore, as a basis for the reasoning, the healthcare professionals reflected on how to establish a responsible relationship with the vulnerable person. This comprised acknowledging the patient as a susceptible human being, protecting dignity and integrity, defining their own moral responsibility, and having patience to give the patient and family time to come to terms with illness and declining health. The profound struggle to respect the patient's autonomy in clinical practice can be understood through the concept of relational autonomy, to try to secure both patients' influence and at the same time take responsibility for their needs as vulnerable humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.