4.4 Article

Towards democratic institutions: Tronto's care ethics inspiring nursing actions in intensive care

期刊

NURSING ETHICS
卷 29, 期 7-8, 页码 1578-1588

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09697330221089093

关键词

Care ethics; moral distress; political action; intensive care; moral/ethical climate; organisations

资金

  1. MES-UNIVERSITES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the theorization and application of care and care ethics in the nursing discipline, with a focus on Tronto's political view of care. It argues that Tronto's care ethics can help understand caring practices in a sociopolitical context and politicize nurses by encouraging critical thinking about their work environment and participation in changing the status quo.
Care as a concept has long been central to the nursing discipline, and care ethics have consequently found their place in nursing ethics discussions. This paper briefly revisits how care and care ethics have been theorized and applied in the discipline of nursing, with an emphasis on Tronto's political view of care. Adding to the works of other nurse scholars, we consider that Tronto's care ethics is useful to understand caring practices in a sociopolitical context. We also contend that this vision can be used specifically to politicize nurses, by encouraging them to think critically about the context in which they work and how they can participate to change the status quo, notably by prompting the democratization of care in institutional settings. We illustrate this by demonstrating how moral distress that can occur with aggressive or futile treatments in the intensive care unit can be reduced if nurses are systematically included in the decision-making process. By showing some ways in which nursing political actions can begin to change the status quo as it pertains to futile treatments at the end of life, we can help empower nurses to strive to be included in political spaces and voice their concerns to have their professional needs met.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据