IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v83y2013icp125-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The discovery of deliberation. From ambiguity to appreciation through the learning process of doing Moral Case Deliberation in Dutch elderly care

Author

Listed:
  • van der Dam, Sandra
  • Schols, Jos M.G.A.
  • Kardol, Tinie J.M.
  • Molewijk, Bert C.
  • Widdershoven, Guy A.M.
  • Abma, Tineke A.

Abstract

In the field of bioethics a trend can be noticed toward deliberative and collective forms of moral reflection among practitioners. Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) is an example of this development and currently introduced in an increasing number of health care organizations in the Netherlands, including elderly care. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the process of implementation of MCD focusing on the learning experiences of practitioners over time. The article is grounded in a naturalistic evaluation of the implementation of MCD in two elderly care institutions between 2006 and 2012. Methods included interviews, participant observations and focus groups. The results indicate that gaining experience with MCD brought about a learning process in which both the learning of competence for reflection and deliberation (e.g. an exploratory attitude) and experiencing the benefits (e.g. relief of moral distress) were key elements. We conclude that doing ethics is the best way to motivate practitioners to engage in moral deliberations on the work floor. Gaining practical experience should be explicitly stimulated bottom-up and facilitated top-down.

Suggested Citation

  • van der Dam, Sandra & Schols, Jos M.G.A. & Kardol, Tinie J.M. & Molewijk, Bert C. & Widdershoven, Guy A.M. & Abma, Tineke A., 2013. "The discovery of deliberation. From ambiguity to appreciation through the learning process of doing Moral Case Deliberation in Dutch elderly care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 125-132.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:83:y:2013:i:c:p:125-132
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361300049X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    2. Agich, George J., 1990. "Clinical ethics: A role theoretic look," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 389-399, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maureen Njue & Francis Kombe & Salim Mwalukore & Sassy Molyneux & Vicki Marsh, 2014. "What Are Fair Study Benefits in International Health Research? Consulting Community Members in Kenya," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Terri Mannarini & Angela Fedi, 2018. "Using Quali-Quantitative Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Citizen Participation: A Study on Three Citizen Juries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 473-490, September.
    3. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    4. Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.
    5. Maureen Njue & Sassy Molyneux & Francis Kombe & Salim Mwalukore & Dorcas Kamuya & Vicki Marsh, 2015. "Benefits in Cash or in Kind? A Community Consultation on Types of Benefits in Health Research on the Kenyan Coast," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.

    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:83:y:2013:i:c:p:125-132. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.