IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v53y2001i6p707-719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical issues and the importance of consensus for the intensive care team

Author

Listed:
  • Melia, Kath M.

Abstract

This paper draws upon an empirical study and combines moral philosophical insights and sociological analysis to shed light on the ethical issues in intensive care. It is argued that moral philosophical debate often leaves aside the social context in which ethical decisions are taken and carried through. In order to gain an understanding of how intensive care is accomplished and specifically how ethical issues are handled, the study focused primarily on nurses' accounts of and views on the practices which form the everyday work of intensive care. A qualitative approach was adopted involving theoretical sampling and the constant comparative method of analysis. The paper argues that the most difficult ethical issue in intensive care, namely the withholding or withdrawal of treatment, is an area in which nursing and medical perspectives are often at odds. However, when the social context of clinical practice is taken into account, this paper argues, there is common ground between the two professions. It was found that the period during which the decision to withdraw treatment is being made, the members of the intensive care team closest to the bedside, nursing and medical staff, become impatient for some resolution of the situation. The differences of opinion which arise over the decision to withdraw are not simply to do with the way in which the situation is experienced by each professional group, proximity to the patient had a part to play in shaping their views rather than, as it is sometimes presumed, a simple rift between medicine and nursing. The data suggest that intensive care has to be a team effort. Even though there is no legal requirement for nurses to agree with the ICU decisions, there seems to be a strong desire within the intensive care team that moral consensus should be achieved in the interests of good patient care. Intensive care relies on the integrity of the team and the unfailing functioning of teamwork. Consequently, achieving this, it seems, is more important than other temporary lapses in interprofessional relations and disagreements over treatment in individual cases. Consensus is important and its achievement is a central, day to day working arrangement for ensuring the solidarity of the team.

Suggested Citation

  • Melia, Kath M., 2001. "Ethical issues and the importance of consensus for the intensive care team," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 707-719, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:6:p:707-719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00381-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iedema, Rick & Sorensen, Roslyn & Braithwaite, Jeffrey & Flabouris, Arthas & Turnbull, Liz, 2005. "The teleo-affective limits of end-of-life care in the intensive care unit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 845-857, February.
    2. Jennifer Rainer & Joanne Kraenzle Schneider & Rebecca A. Lorenz, 2018. "Ethical dilemmas in nursing: An integrative review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3446-3461, October.
    3. Carmel, Simon, 2006. "Health care practices, professions and perspectives: A case study in intensive care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 2079-2090, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:6:p:707-719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.