Search

Attempts to conduct systematic reviews of ethical arguments in bioethics are fundamentally misguided. All areas of enquiry need thorough and informative literature reviews, and efforts to bring transparency and systematic methods to bioethics are to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the raw materials of bioethical articles are not suited to methods of systematic review. The eclecticism of philosophy may lead to suspicion of philosophical methods in bioethics. Because bioethics aims to influence medical and scientific practice it is tempting to adopt scientific language and methods. One manifestation is the increasing innovation in, and use of, systematic reviews of ethical arguments in bioethics. Yet bioethics, as a broadly philosophical area of enquiry, is unsuited to systematic review. Bioethical arguments are evaluative, so notions of quality and bias are inapplicable. Bioethical argument is conceptual rather than numerical, and the classification of concepts is itself a process of argument that cannot aspire to neutrality. Any 'systematic review' of ethical arguments in bioethics thus falls short of that name. Furthermore, labels matter. Although the bioethics research community may find that adopting the language and the outward methods of clinical science offers apparent prospects of credibility, policy influence and funding, we argue that such misdirection carries risks and is unlikely to pay dividends in the long term. Bioethical sources are amenable to the review methods of the social sciences, and it is on these methods that specific methods of bioethics literature review should be built., (© 2022 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

There has been increasing debate in recent years about the conceptualization of moral distress. Broadly speaking, two groups of scholars have emerged: those who agree with Jameton's 'narrow definition' that focuses on constraint and those who argue that Jameton's definition is insufficient and needs to be broadened. Using feminist empirical bioethics, we interviewed critical care nurses in the United Kingdom about their experiences and conceptualizations of moral distress. We provide our broader definition of moral distress and examples of data that both challenge and support our conceptualization. We pre-empt and overcome three key challenges that could be levelled at our account and argue that there are good reasons to adopt our broader definition of moral distress when exploring prevalence of, and management strategies for, moral distress., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The phenomenon of 'moral distress' has continued to be a popular topic for nursing research. However, much of the scholarship has lacked conceptual clarity, and there is debate about what it means to experience moral distress. Moral distress remains an obscure concept to many clinical nurses, especially those outside of North America, and there is a lack of empirical research regarding its impact on nurses in the United Kingdom and its relevance to clinical practice., Research Aim: To explore the concept of moral distress in nursing both empirically and conceptually., Methodology: Feminist interpretive phenomenology was used to explore and analyse the experiences of critical care nurses at two acute care trauma hospitals in the United Kingdom. Empirical data were analysed using Van Manen's six steps for data analysis., Ethical Considerations: The study was approved locally by the university ethics review committee and nationally by the Health Research Authority in the United Kingdom., Findings: The empirical findings suggest that psychological distress can occur in response to a variety of moral events. The moral events identified as causing psychological distress in the participants' narratives were moral tension, moral uncertainty, moral constraint, moral conflict and moral dilemmas., Discussion: We suggest a new definition of moral distress which captures this broader range of moral events as legitimate causes of distress. We also suggest that moral distress can be sub-categroised according to the source of distress, for example, 'moral-uncertainty distress'. We argue that this could aid in the development of interventions which attempt to address and mitigate moral distress., Conclusion: The empirical findings support the notion that narrow conceptions of moral distress fail to capture the real-life experiences of this group of critical care nurses. If these experiences resonate with other nurses and healthcare professionals, then it is likely that the definition needs to be broadened to recognise these experiences as 'moral distress'.

Background: There is growing interest in the use and incorporation of empirical data in bioethics research. Much of the recent focus has been on specific "empirical bioethics" methodologies, which attempt to integrate the empirical and the normative. Researchers in the field are, however, beginning to explore broader questions, including around acceptable standards of practice for undertaking such research. The framework: In this article, we further widen the focus to consider the overall shape of an empirical bioethics research project. We outline a framework that identifies three key phases of such research, which are conveyed via a landscaping metaphor of Mapping-Framing-Shaping. First, the researcher maps the field of study, typically by undertaking literature reviews. Second, the researcher frames particular areas of the field of study, exploring these in depth, usually via qualitative research. Finally, the researcher seeks to (re-)shape the terrain by issuing recommendations that draw on the findings from the preceding phases. To qualify as empirical bioethics research, the researcher will utilise a methodology that seeks to bridge these different elements in order to arrive at normative recommendations. We illustrate the framework by citing examples of diverse projects which broadly adopt the three-phase framework. Amongst the strengths of the framework are its flexibility, since (as the examples indicate) it does not prescribe any specific methods or particular bridging methodology. However, the framework might also have its limitations, not least because it appears particularly to capture projects that involve qualitative - as opposed to quantitative - research., Conclusions: Despite its possible limitations, we offer the Mapping-Framing-Shaping framework in the hope that this will prove useful to those who are seeking to plan and undertake empirical bioethics research projects.

Aims: The aim of this narrative synthesis was to explore the necessary and sufficient conditions required to define moral distress., Background: Moral distress is said to occur when one has made a moral judgement but is unable to act upon it. However, problems with this narrow conception have led to multiple redefinitions in the empirical and conceptual literature. As a consequence, much of the research exploring moral distress has lacked conceptual clarity, complicating attempts to study the phenomenon., Design: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis (November 2015-March 2016)., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE ® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 1946-Present, PsycINFO ® 1967-Present, CINAHL ® Plus 1937-Present, EMBASE 1974-24 February 2016, British Nursing Index 1994-Present, Social Care Online, Social Policy and Practice Database (1890-Present), ERIC (EBSCO) 1966-Present and Education Abstracts., Review Methods: Literature relating to moral distress was systematically retrieved and subjected to relevance assessment. Narrative synthesis was the overarching framework that guided quality assessment, data analysis and synthesis., Results: In all, 152 papers underwent initial data extraction and 34 were chosen for inclusion in the narrative synthesis based on both quality and relevance. Analysis revealed different proposed conditions for the occurrence of moral distress: moral judgement, psychological and physical effects, moral dilemmas, moral uncertainty, external and internal constraints and threats to moral integrity., Conclusion: We suggest the combination of (1) the experience of a moral event, (2) the experience of 'psychological distress' and (3) a direct causal relation between (1) and (2) together are necessary and sufficient conditions for moral distress.

Background: This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds., Methods: The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach., Results: Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise)., Conclusions: Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

In "A Conceptual Model for the Translation of Bioethics Research and Scholarship," Debra Mathews et al. aim to "begin an important discussion" about how to measure success in bioethics, and in doing so they set out a typology of bioethics research and scholarship with the arguably correct assumption that we cannot evaluate success in bioethics without first understanding what its goals are. I think the authors are correct in their claim that, in the current academic climate, having work in bioethics deemed a success is likely to hinge, in some way, on its being translated into practice and having impact. I want, however, to add a critical voice in the form of three considerations that I feel ought to be attended to before the work progresses further, the first being that the typology Mathews et al. propose is highly problematic. Although there is a burgeoning literature on "empirical bioethics" methodologies that blend empirical and conceptual work, the typology appears to ignore this., (© 2016 The Hastings Center.)

Background: Despite the increased prevalence of bioethics research that seeks to use empirical data to answer normative research questions, there is no consensus as to what an appropriate methodology for this would be. This review aims to search the literature, present and critically discuss published Empirical Bioethics methodologies., Methods: MedLine, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched between 15/02/12 and 16/06/13 to find relevant papers. These were abstract reviewed independently by two reviewers with papers meeting the inclusion criteria subjected to data extraction., Results: 33 publications (32 papers and one book chapter) were included which contained 32 distinct methodologies. The majority of these methodologies (n = 22) can be classed as either dialogical or consultative, and these represent two extreme 'poles' of methodological orientation. Consideration of these results provoked three central questions that are central to the planning of an empirical bioethics study, and revolve around how a normative conclusion can be justified, the analytic process through which that conclusion is reached, and the kind of conclusion that is sought., Conclusion: When considering which methodology or research methods to adopt in any particular study, researchers need to think carefully about the nature of the claims they wish to generate through their analyses, and how these claims align with the aims of the research. Whilst there are superficial similarities in the ways that identical research methods are made use of, the different meta-ethical and epistemological commitments that undergird the range of methodological approaches adopted rehearse many of the central foundational disagreements that play out within moral philosophy and bioethical analysis more broadly. There is little common ground that transcends these disagreements, and we argue that this is likely to present a challenge for the legitimacy of the bioethical enterprise. We conclude, however, that this heterogeneity ought to be welcomed, but urge those involved in the field to engage meaningfully and explicitly with questions concerning what kinds of moral claim they want to be able to make, about normative justification and the methodological process, and about the coherence of these components within their work.

In recent years there has been a wealth of literature arguing the need for empirical and interdisciplinary approaches to bioethics, based on the premise that an empirically informed ethical analysis is more grounded, contextually sensitive and therefore more relevant to clinical practice than an 'abstract' philosophical analysis. Bioethics has (arguably) always been an interdisciplinary field, and the rise of 'empirical' (bio)ethics need not be seen as an attempt to give a new name to the longstanding practice of interdisciplinary collaboration, but can perhaps best be understood as a substantive attempt to engage with the nature of that interdisciplinarity and to articulate the relationship between the many different disciplines (some of them empirical) that contribute to the field. It can also be described as an endeavour to explain how different disciplinary approaches can be integrated to effectively answer normative questions in bioethics, and fundamental to that endeavour is the need to think about how a robust methodology can be articulated that successfully marries apparently divergent epistemological and metaethical perspectives with method. This paper proposes 'Reflexive Bioethics' (RB) as a methodology for interdisciplinary and empirical bioethics, which utilizes a method of 'Reflexive Balancing' (RBL). RBL has been developed in response to criticisms of various forms of reflective equilibrium, and is built upon a pragmatic characterization of Bioethics and a 'quasi-moral foundationalism', which allows RBL to avoid some of the difficulties associated with RE and yet retain the flexible egalitarianism that makes it intuitively appealing to many., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In this paper we set forth what we believe to be a relatively controversial argument, claiming that 'bioethics' needs to undergo a fundamental change in the way it is practised. This change, we argue, requires philosophical bioethicists to adopt reflexive practices when applying their analyses in public forums, acknowledging openly that bioethics is an embedded socio-cultural practice, shaped by the ever-changing intuitions of individual philosophers, which cannot be viewed as a detached intellectual endeavour. This said, we argue that in order to manage the personal, social and cultural embeddedness of bioethics, philosophical bioethicists should openly acknowledge how their practices are constructed and should, in their writing, explicitly deal with issues of bias and conflict of interest, just as empirical scientists are required to do.

In this article we distinguish between philosophical bioethics (PB), descriptive policy orientated bioethics (DPOB) and normative policy oriented bioethics (NPOB). We argue that finding an appropriate methodology for combining empirical data and moral theory depends on what the aims of the research endeavour are, and that, for the most part, this combination is only required for NPOB. After briefly discussing the debate around the is/ought problem, and suggesting that both sides of this debate are misunderstanding one another (i.e. one side treats it as a conceptual problem, whilst the other treats it as an empirical claim), we outline and defend a methodological approach to NPOB based on work we have carried out on a project exploring the normative foundations of paternal rights and responsibilities. We suggest that given the prominent role already played by moral intuition in moral theory, one appropriate way to integrate empirical data and philosophical bioethics is to utilize empirically gathered lay intuition as the foundation for ethical reasoning in NPOB. The method we propose involves a modification of a long-established tradition on non-intervention in qualitative data gathering, combined with a form of reflective equilibrium where the demands of theory and data are given equal weight and a pragmatic compromise reached.

Artificially intelligent systems (AISs) are being created by software developing companies (SDCs) to influence clinical decision‐making. Historically, clinicians have led healthcare decision‐making, and the introduction of AISs makes SDCs novel actors in the clinical decision‐making space. Although these AISs are intended to influence a clinician's decision‐making, SDCs have been clear that clinicians are in fact the final decision‐makers in clinical care, and that AISs can only inform their decisions. As such, the default position is that clinicians should hold responsibility for the outcomes of the use of AISs. This is not the case when an AIS has influenced a clinician's judgement and their subsequent decision. In this paper, we argue that this is an imbalanced and unjust position, and that careful thought needs to go into how personal moral responsibility for the use of AISs in clinical decision‐making should be attributed. This paper employs and examines the difference between prospective and retrospective responsibility and considers foreseeability as key in determining how personal moral responsibility can be justly attributed. This leads us to the view that moral responsibility for the outcomes of using AISs in healthcare ought to be shared by the clinical users and SDCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: To explore moral distress empirically and conceptually, to understand the factors that mitigate and exacerbate moral distress and construct a model that represents how moral distress relates to its constituent parts and related concepts. Background: There is ongoing debate about how to understand and respond to moral distress in nursing practice. Design: The overarching design was feminist empirical bioethics in which feminist interpretive phenomenology provided the tools for data collection and analysis, reported following the COREQ guidelines. Using reflexive balancing, the empirical data were combined with feminist theory to produce normative recommendations about how to respond to moral distress. The Moral Distress Model presented in this paper is a culmination of the empirical data and theory. Methods: Using feminist interpretive phenomenology, critical care nurses in the United Kingdom (n = 21) were interviewed and data analysed. Reflexive Balancing was used to integrate the data with feminist theory to provide normative recommendations about how to understand moral distress. Results: There are five compounding factors that exacerbate/ mitigate nurses' experiences of moral distress: epistemic injustice; the roster lottery; conflict between one's professional and personal responsibilities; ability to advocate and team dynamics. In addition to the causal connection and responses to moral distress, these factors make up the moral distress model which can guide approaches to mitigate moral distress. Conclusions: The Moral Distress Model is the culmination of these data and theorising formulated into a construct to explain how each element interacts. We propose that this model can be used to inform the design of interventions to address moral distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the convention of allocating donated gametes on a 'first come, first served' basis should be replaced with an allocation system that takes into account more morally relevant criteria than waiting time. This conclusion was developed using an empirical bioethics methodology, which involved a study of the views of 18 staff members from seven U.K. fertility clinics, and 20 academics, policy-makers, representatives of patient groups, and other relevant professionals, on the allocation of donated sperm and eggs. Against these views, we consider some nuanced ways of including criteria in a points allocation system. We argue that such a system is more ethically robust than 'first come, first served', but we acknowledge that our results suggest that a points system will meet with resistance from those working in the field. We conclude that criteria such as a patient's age, potentially damaging substance use, and parental status should be used to allocate points and determine which patients receive treatment and in what order. These and other factors should be applied according to how they bear on considerations like child welfare, patient welfare, and the effectiveness of the proposed treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Interdisciplinary and Empirical Ethics Network was established in 2012 with funding from the Wellcome Trust in order to facilitate critical and constructive discussion around the nature of the disciplinary diversity within bioethics and to consider the ongoing development of bioethics as an evolving field of interdisciplinary study. In April 2013, the Interdisciplinary and Empirical Ethics Network organized a workshop at the Centre for Public Policy Research, King’s College London, which discussed the nature and possibility of professionalism within interdisciplinary and empirical bioethics. This paper provides a report of that workshop. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Bioethics is an interdisciplinary field that accommodates a broad range of perspectives and disciplines. This inherent diversity sets a number of challenges for both teachers and students of bioethics, notably in respect to the appropriate aims and methods of bioethics education, standards and criteria for evaluating performance and disciplinary identity. The Interdisciplinary and Empirical Ethics Network (IEEN) was established, with funding from the Wellcome Trust, to facilitate critical and constructive discussion about the ongoing development of bioethics as an evolving field of interdisciplinary study. In November 2012 the IEEN organised a workshop at the University of Birmingham to discuss the issues relating to teaching and learning in interdisciplinary and empirical bioethics. This paper reports on that meeting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Information about the Second Annual Postgraduate Conference in Bioethics in Cambridge, England is presented. It discussed the theoretical and methodological foundations of bioethics and future research agendas. It is stated that many delegates were invited to explore how they perform bioethics and whether they identify themselves as bioethicists through describing on aspects of their own research.

In this paper, we present the first stage of an empirical bioethics project exploring the moral sources of paternal responsibilities and rights. In doing so, we present both (1) data on men's normative constructions of fatherhood and (2) the first of a two-stage methodological approach to empirical bioethics. Using data gathered from 12 focus groups run with UK men who have had a variety of different fathering experiences (n = 50), we examine men's perspectives on how paternal responsibilities and rights are generated and the significance of the genetic connection within the father-child relationship. We do not attempt to explore men's experiences of fatherhood or their fathering practices; and neither is the analysis driven from a particular sociological perspective. Rather, we explore men's normative constructions of fatherhood in order to present accessible data that might be of significance to the philosophical/moral debate on the sources of paternal rights and responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1997, the Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics programme was launched in the UK, with a strategy that sought to encourage bioethics research that married normative philosophical bioethics and social science methodologies. This paper explores a few of the children of this marriage, particularly those approaches that have been taken in an attempt to make this interdisciplinary marriage a happy one. We suggest that the dominant discourse has involved social science for bioethics, and sociology of bioethics, and we suggest further that neither of these approaches represent a happy and equal marriage. We then outline a third approach: social science in bioethics. Drawing upon our experiences of conducting such a project we describe the broad methodological approach that we have taken, and outline how, and why, this approach might be productive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper responds to the commentaries from Stacy Carter and Alan Cribb. We pick up on two main themes in our response. First, we reflect on how the process of setting standards for empirical bioethics research entails drawing boundaries around what research counts as empirical bioethics research, and we discuss whether the standards agreed in the consensus process draw these boundaries correctly. Second, we expand on the discussion in the original paper of the role and significance of the concept of 'integrating' empirical methods and ethical argument as a standard for research practice within empirical bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]