Evaluating the use of casuistry during moral case deliberation in the ICU

A multiple qualitative case study

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4808395
AutoresNiek Kok (0000-0002-6066-4496, Radboud University Medical Center, autor de correspondencia), Cornelia Hoedemaekers (0000-0001-7375-1372, Radboud University Medical Center), Malaika Fuchs (Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis), Hans Van Der Hoeven (0000-0002-1987-4790, Radboud University Medical Center), Marieke Zegers (0000-0002-7472-6184, Radboud University Medical Center), Jelle Van Gurp (0000-0002-9904-2571, Radboud University Medical Center)
Año2024
Volumen345
Páginas116662
Fecha de publicación2024-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSocial Science & Medicine (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347
EditorialElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116662
PMID38364726
OpenAlexW4391744707
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas30

Intensive care unit (ICU) professionals engage in ethical decision making under conditions of high stakes, great uncertainty, time-sensitivity and frequent irreversibility of action. Casuistry is a way by which actionable knowledge is obtained through comparing a patient case to previous cases from experience in clinical practice. However, within the field of study as well as in practice, evidence-based medicine is the dominant epistemic framework. This multiple case study evaluated the use of casuistic reasoning by intensive care unit (ICU) professionals during moral case deliberation. It took place in two Dutch hospitals between June 2020 and June 2022. Twentyfive moral case deliberations from ICU practice were recorded and analyzed using discourse analysis. Additionally, 47 interviews were held with ICU professionals who participated in these deliberations, analyzed using thematic analysis. We found that ICU professionals made considerable use of case comparisons when discussing continuation, withdrawal or limitation. Analogies played a role in justifying or complicating moral judgements, and also played a role in addressing moral distress. The language of case-based arguments is most often not overtly normative. Rather, the data shows that casuistic reasoning deals with the medical, ethical and contextual elements of decisions in an integrated manner. Facilitators of MCD have an essential role in (supporting ICU professionals in) scrutinizing casuistic arguments. The data shows that during MCD, actual reasoning often deviated from principle- and rule-based reasoning which ICU professionals preferred themselves. Evidence-based arguments often gained the character of analogical arguments, especially when a patient-at-hand was seen as highly unique from the average patients in the literature. Casuistic arguments disguised as evidence-based arguments may therefore provide ICU professionals with a false sense of certainty. Within education, we should strive to train clinicians and ethics facilitators so that they can recognize and evaluate casuistic arguments

Casuistry · Deliberation · Epistemology · Intensive care · Moral reasoning · Normative · Political science · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Thematic analysis · Ethics in medical practice · Law · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Medicine · Nursing · Patient Dignity and Privacy · Psychology · Social Psychology