Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 125–139 | Cite as

The desired moral attitude of the physician: (III) care

Scientific Contribution

Abstract

In professional medical ethics, the physician traditionally is obliged to fulfil specific duties as well as to embody a responsible and trustworthy personality. In the public discussion, different concepts are suggested to describe the desired moral attitude of physicians. In a series of three articles, three of the discussed concepts are presented in an interpretation that is meant to characterise the morally emotional part of this attitude: “empathy”, “compassion” and “care”. In the first article of the series, “empathy” has been developed as a mainly cognitive and morally neutral capacity of understanding. In the second article, the emotional and virtuous core of the desired professional attitude—compassion—has been presented. Compassion as a professional attitude has been distinguished from a spontaneous feeling of compassion, and has been related to a general idea of man as vulnerable and solidary being. Thus, the dignity of the patient is safeguarded in spite of the asymmetry of compassion. In this article, the third concept of the triad—“care”—is presented. Care is conceived as an attitude as well as an activity which can be directed to different objects: if it is directed to another sentient being, it is regarded as intrinsically morally valuable; implying (1) the acceptance of being addressed, (2) a benevolent inclination to help and to foster, and (3) activity to realize this. There are different forms of benevolence that can underlie caring. With regard to the professional physician’s ethos, the attitude of empathic compassion as developed in the two previous articles is proposed to be the adequate underlying attitude of care which demands the right balance between closeness and professionalism and the right form of attention to the person of the patient. ‘Empathic compassionate care’ does not, however, describe the whole of the desired attitude of a physician, but focuses on the morally-emotive aspects. In order to get also the cognitive and practical aspects of biomedicine into the picture, ‘empathic compassionate care’ has to be combined with an attitude of responsibility that is more directed to decision-making and outcome than a caring attitude alone can be. The reconstruction of the desired professional attitude in terms of “empathic compassionate care” and “responsibility” is certainly not the only possible description, but it is a detailed proposal in order to give an impulse for the discussion about the inner tacit values and the meaning of medicine and clinical healthcare professions.

Keywords

Clinical ethics Empathy Compassion Care Virtue ethics Moral motivation Professionalism Moral attitude 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Rolf Ahlzén (University of Karlstad, Sweden) and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and immense patience. I am also grateful to the readers who share this patience of reading three articles that belong so tightly together, and to the editor who agreed to open the stage for this experiment.

References

  1. Ahlzén, R. 2010. Why should physicians read? Understanding clinical judgment and its relation to literary experience. Karlstad: Faculty of Social and Life sciences. Department of Public Health Science.Google Scholar
  2. Andolsen, B.H. 1994. Elements of a feminist approach to bioethics. In Religious methods and resources in bioethics, ed. P.F. Camenisch, 227–257. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle, 2002. Nicomachean ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Asimov, I. 2008(1950). I, robot. New York: Spectra.Google Scholar
  5. Branch, W.T. Jr. 2000. The ethics of caring and medical education. Academic Medicine 75(2): 127–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody, H. 1998. The family practician: What sort of person? Family Medicine 30(8): 589–593.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Callahan, D. 2001. Our need for caring: Vulnerability and illness. In The lost art of caring, ed. L.E. Cluff and R.H. Binstock, 11–24. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carse, A.L. 1998. Impartial principle and moral context: Securing a place for the particular in ethical theory. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 153–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carse, A.L., and H. Lindemann Nelson. 1996. Rehabilitating care. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6(1): 19–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassell, E.J. 1982. The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 306(11): 639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassell, E.J. 1985. The healer’s art. A new approach to the doctor-patient relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Comte-Sponville, A. 1996. Ermutigung zum unzeitgemäβen Leben. Ein kleines Brevier der Tugenden und Werte. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt (orig. 1995. Petit traité des grandes vertus, Paris: Presses universitaires de France).Google Scholar
  13. Feinstein, A.R. 1967. Clinical judgment. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company.Google Scholar
  14. Foot, P. 2002. Virtues and vices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foss, T.D. 2006. Angels of death? Mercy killing? How about murder? British Journal of Nursing 15(8): 417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fry, S.T. 1989. Toward a theory of nursing ethics. Advances in Nursing Sciences 11(4): 9–22.Google Scholar
  17. Gaul, A.L. 1995. Care: An ethical foundation for critical care nursing. Critical Care Nurse 15(3): 131–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelhaus, P. 2011a. I, medical robot. On the distinctions between a virtuous doctor and a good robot. International Journal of Person-Centred Medicine 1(2): 301–306.Google Scholar
  19. Gelhaus, P. 2011b. Robot decisions. On the importance of virtuous judgment in clinical decision-making. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17(5): 883–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge: Psychological theory and women’s development.Google Scholar
  21. Good, B.J. 1990. Medicine, rationality, and experience. An anthropological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jecker, N.S. 2003. Care: III. Contemporary ethics of care. In Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol. 5, 3rd ed, ed. S.G., Post, 367–374. New York: Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  23. MacIntyre, A. 2007. After virtue, 3rd ed. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  24. Mayeroff, M. 1990. On caring. London: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, G.E. 1903. Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Murphy, C.P. 1984. The changing role of nurses in making. Law, Medicine and Health Care 12(4): 173–175, 184.Google Scholar
  27. Noddings, N. 1984. Caring. A feminine approach to ethics and education. Berkely: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nussbaum, M.C. 2001. Upheavals of thought. The intelligence of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olthuis, G.J. 2007. Who cares? An ethical study of the moral attitude of professionals in palliative care practice. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  30. Paley, J. 2002. Caring as a slave morality. Nietzschean themes in nursing ethics. In. Journal of Advanced Nursing 40(1): 25–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pellegrino, E.D. 1988. The caring ethics: The relation of physician to patient. In: Caring, curing, coping. nurse. Physician. Patient. Relationships, ed. A.H. Bishop and J.R. Scudder Jr., 8–30. Lynchburg: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pellegrino, E.D. 1995. Toward a virtue-based normative ethics for the health professions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pellegrino, E.D., and D.C. Thomasma. 1988. For the patient’s good. The restoration of beneficence in health care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pellegrino, E.D., and D.C. Thomasma. 1993. The virtues in medical practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reich, W.T. 2001. The care-based ethic of Nazi medicine and the moral importance of what we care about. American Journal of Bioethics 1(1): 64–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reich, W.T. 2003a. Care: I. History of the notion of care. In: Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol. 5, 3rd ed, ed. S.G., Post, 349–361. New York: Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  37. Reich, W.T. 2003b. Care: II. Historical dimensions of an ethic of care in health care. In: Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol. 5, 3rd ed, ed. S.G., Post, 361–367. New York: Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  38. Rhodes, R. 2001. Understanding the trusted doctor and constructing a theory of bioethics. Theoretical Medicine 22: 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rudnick, A. 2001. A meta-ethical critique of care ethics. Theoretical Medicine 22: 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schweitzer, A. 1990(1923). Kultur und Ethik. Kulturphilosophie, Zweiter Teil. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  41. Sharpe, V.A. 1992. Justice and Care: The implications of the Kohlberg-Gilligan debate for medical ethics. Theoretical Medicine 13: 295–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shoemaker, D. 2007. Moral address, moral responsibility, and the boundaries of the moral community. Ethics 118: 70–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slote, M. 2001. Morals from motives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stein, L. 1967. The doctor-nurse-game. Archives of General Psychiatry 16: 699–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stocker, M. 1976. The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories. The Journal of Philosophy 73: 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. The Goals of Medicine. 1996. Setting new priorities. In Hastings Center Report Nov–Dec. Special supplement.Google Scholar
  47. Tisdale, W.A. 1979. On clinical caring. The Pharos 42(4): 23–26.Google Scholar
  48. Veatch, R.M. 1998. The place of care in ethical theory. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 210–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verkerk, M. 2001. The care perspective and autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4(3): 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Ethics, History and Theory of MedicineUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Health and Society, Institute of Medical and Health SciencesUniversity of LinköpingLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations