"There should be something gained": carers' ethical reasoning about using a common staff approach in psychiatric in-care
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Thirteen carers experienced in caring for psychiatric in-patients were interviewed about their ethical reasoning when using a common staff approach to restricting smoking for a psychiatric in-patient. A constructed case structure and a vignette method were used in the interviews, and manifest content analysis of the texts exposed five ethical positions (i.e. categories) adopted by the carers: “It is best for the person,” “It is best for the patient,” “It is best for people related to the person/patient,” “It is best for me as a carer,” and “It is best according to rules and regulations”. A second manifest content analysis of language showed 101 terms that expressed value judgments; 97 that concerned rights and obligations, mostly about responsibility and restricting other people’s actions; and 210 that concerned human actions, mainly in regard to personal experiences. Some carers argued at first from one ethical position, but when the question in the vignette was changed, abandoned their earlier position and argued from an opposite ethical position. These results may be understood in light of dialog philosophy; ethical reasoning during use of a common staff approach tends to focus either on relations with others or with oneself.
ethics, nursing, common approach, psychiatry, content analysis, vignette
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-54540OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-54540DiVA: diva2:524156