| Title |
Understanding and Resolving Conflicting Traditions: A MacIntyrean Approach to Shared Deliberation in Medical Ethics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEC Forum, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10730-017-9337-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Adkins |
| Abstract |
The position of clinical ethicist exists to help resolve conflicts in the hospital. Sometimes these conflicts arise because of fundamental cultural differences between the patient and the medical team, and such cases present special challenges. Should the ideology of modern medicine reject the wishes of those who hold ideologies from differing cultures? How can the medical ethicist help resolve such conflicts? To answer these questions, I rely on the works of Alasdair MacIntyre. Using MacIntyre's philosophy, we can better understand why traditions exist, how conflicts arise, and how opposing traditions can collaborate in shared decision making. In order to overcome conflict, I conclude that MacIntyre's virtues of acknowledged dependence must be realized by the ethicist and those in disagreement over tradition. I use a case study of a young Amish patient to highlight the conflicts that arise and to help exhibit how shared decision making can be made possible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,218,213
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#91
of 183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,747
of 318,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.