Virtue ethics: an approach to moral dilemmas in nursing

Abstract

Nurses are increasingly confronted with situations of moral difficulty, such as not to feed terminally ill patients, whistle blowing, or participation in termination of pregnancy. Most of these moral dilemmas are often analyzed using the principle-based approach which applies the four moral principles of justice, autonomy, beneficence, and nonmalificence. In some instances, consequentialism is considered, but these frameworks have their limitations. Their limitations has to do with a consideration for the interpersonal nature of clinical nursing practice on the one hand, and is not always clear on how to judge which consequences are best on the other hand. When principles are in conflict it is not always easy to decide which principle should dominate. Furthermore, these frameworks do not take into account the importance of the interpersonal and emotional element of human experience. On the contrary, decision making about moral issues in healthcare demands that nurses exercise rational control over emotions. This clearly focuses the attention on the nurse as moral agent and in particular their character.<br /> In this article I argue that virtue ethics as an approach, which focus of the character of a person, might provide a more holistic analysis of moral dilemmas in nursing and might facilitate more flexible and creative solutions when combined with other theories of moral decision-making. Advancing this argument, firstly, I provide the central features of virtue ethics. Secondly I describe a story in which a moral dilemma is evident. Lastly I apply virtue ethics as an approach to this moral dilemma and in particular focusing on the virtues inherent in the nurse as moral agent in the story

Moral Ecology in Nursing: A Pluralistic Approach

“…It does not begin and end when one arrives to and leaves work. Several nursing scholars advocate for virtue ethics in nursing including Armstrong (2006), Arries (2005), Bliss, Baltzy, Bull, Dalton, and Jones (2017), Brody (1988), and Lutzen and Barbosa da Silva (1996).…”

What Does it Mean to be Human? Life, Death, Personhood and the Transhumanist Movement

“…Virtue ethics is yet another approach to handling ethical issues (Gardiner 2003;Arries 2005;Begley 2005;Begley 2008). This third approach focuses on the character of the person (moral agent) handling the moral issue, not on any specific ethical rules (as the deontological approach emphasizes) or on the consequences of any ethical decision (as the utilitarian approach requires).…”

“…This third approach focuses on the character of the person (moral agent) handling the moral issue, not on any specific ethical rules (as the deontological approach emphasizes) or on the consequences of any ethical decision (as the utilitarian approach requires). What differentiates virtue ethics from approaches such as consequentialism or deontology is the supremacy of virtue within the theory (Gardiner 2003;Arries 2005). While consequentialist philosophers might see virtues as characteristics that produce desirable outcomes and deontologists might see virtues as traits possessed by individuals who reliably complete their duties and responsibilities, virtue ethicists take a very different tactic.…”

“…Virtue ethics is not without its critics. One criticism is that, in principle, virtue ethics is often unable to provide specific guidance to direct moral action, as it is "agent-centered" rather than "act-centered" (Arries 2005;Begley 2005). Some virtue ethicists might respond to this concern by rejecting the assumption that virtue ethics ought to be in the business of providing an account of right action in the first place, but if this is the case there still remains a need for providing some sort of account to handle the practical ethical conundrums encountered in the real world.…”

Towards the responsible conduct of scientific research: is ethics education enough?

“…This may be partially due to inappropriate content in ethics courses (problems presented or used as exemplars that exceed the experience or learning level at which students are currently ‘located’) and the limited practical value of assignments that comprise formal assessment. While the ethics principles and concepts that medical and engineering students are taught at university may help them resolve abstract ethical dilemmas, in real-life situations these principles are often in conflict, making it difficult for professionals to decide which principle to prioritize in particular cases (Arries 2005). This is hardly surprising given that, in the words of Daniel Chambliss (1996, p. 19): … the hospital is like a war zone, in which common niceties and rules of decorum are discarded in the pursuit of some more immediate, desperate objective.…”