Hippocrates as hospital employee: balancing beneficence and contractual duty

Clarification of ethical principle of the beneficence in nursing care: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

Ethics-based nursing practice can transform health care practices. As the biggest human capital in the health care system, nurses are obliged to follow ethical principles in this field. One of these ethical principles; is beneficence, which is considered the core of nursing care. This study aimed to investigate clarification of the principle of beneficence in nursing care and its related challenges.

METHODS

This integrative review was conducted using the Whittemore & Knafl method in 5 stages, including problem identification, searching the literature, evaluating primary sources, analyzing data, and presenting the results. Databases like SID, Irandoc, Magiran, Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus were searched using the keywords; "beneficence", "ethic", "nursing" and "care" in English and Persian in the time range of 2010 to 10 February, 2023. After applying inclusion criteria and assessing the articles using Bowling's Quality Assessment Tool, finally, 16 papers were included from 984.

RESULTS

After reviewing and evaluating the qualified articles, the findings were classified into four main categories: (1) nature, (2) applicability, (3) Relevant and influential factors, and (4) challenges related to the ethical principle of beneficence in nursing care.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this review it seems that paying attention to clarification the principle of beneficence in nursing care can provide positive outcomes for patients to benefit from this principle and finally, it leads to increasing the well-being and health of patients, reducing their mortality rate, increasing satisfaction and maintaining the respect and human dignity of patients.

Labor unions in medicine: the intersection of patient advocacy and self-advocacy

BACKGROUND

Labor unions have been a weak force in the medical marketplace.

OBJECTIVES

To briefly review the history of physicians' and nurses' labor unions, explore the ethics of unions in medicine, and offer a solution that simultaneously serves patients and professionals.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

Labor unions of medical professionals pose an ethical quandary, that is a tension between selfless patient advocacy versus self-advocacy. The primary role of labor unions has been to extract from management benefits for employees. The threat of work actions is the primary tool that labor unions can apply to encourage management to negotiate mutually acceptable conditions of employment. Work actions-namely slow-downs and strikes-may harm patients and may therefore run afoul of professionals' primary duty to the primacy of patients' welfare. An alternative model is offered wherein medical unions align self-centered and patient-centered interests and leverage the Public Good, in the form of public opinion, to encourage good-faith bargaining with management.

CONCLUSIONS

As medicine becomes increasingly corporatized, physicians will join nurses in "at-will employment" arrangements whereby self-advocacy and patient advocacy may be impacted. Although labor unions have been a means of counterbalancing unchecked discretion of corporate management, conventional labor unions may run afoul of medical ethical principles. Reconsideration and innovation, to address this ethical dilemma, could provide a solution that aligns both clinicians' and patients' welfare.

Will my job be safe if I defend my patients? When patient advocacy collides with employment law

Physicians are moving increasingly from self-employed, private practices to at-will employment relationships. This historic change in the organizational administration of medical services is likely to accelerate as the Affordable Care Act is implemented and as accountable care organizations permeate the medical marketplace. Physicians vow an ascendant oath to safeguard patients' welfare, but as they become employees, they may sign legal contracts that also oblige obedience to the institutions that hire them. What happens when an employer makes a decision that is not in the best interests of patients and the physicians fulfill their Hippocratic obligation to voice dissent on their patients' behalf rather than abiding by their contractual obligation to obey their employer? This article explores the philosophical and legal ramifications of this potential collision of obligations to patients and to employers.