Metselaar Suzanne
Ethics, Law, & Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bioethics. 2024 Mar;38(3):233-240. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13225. Epub 2023 Sep 30.
This article discusses an approach to translational bioethics (TB) that is concerned with the adaptation-or 'translation'-of concepts, theories and methods from bioethics to practical contexts, in order to support 'non-bioethicists', such as researchers and healthcare practitioners, in dealing with their ethical issues themselves. Specifically, it goes into the participatory development of clinical ethics support (CES) instruments that respond to the needs and wishes of healthcare practitioners and that are tailored to the specific care contexts in which they are to be used. The theoretical underpinnings of this participatory approach to TB are found in hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. As an example, the development of CURA, a low-threshold CES instrument for healthcare professionals in palliative care, is discussed. From this example, it becomes clear that TB is a two-way street. Practice may be improved by means of CES that is effectively tailored to specific end users and care contexts. The other way around, ethical theory may be enriched by means of the insights gained from engaging with practice in developing CES in a process of co-creation. TB is also a two-way street in the sense that it requires collaboration and commitment of both bioethicists and practitioners, who engage in a process of mutual learning. However, substantial challenges remain. For instance, is there a limit to the extent to which a method of moral reasoning can be adapted in order to meet the constraints of a given healthcare setting? Who is to decide, the bioethicist or the practitioners?
本文探讨了一种转化生物伦理学(TB)的方法,该方法关注将生物伦理学的概念、理论和方法进行调整或“转化”,以应用于实际情境,从而支持研究人员和医疗从业者等“非生物伦理学家”自行处理他们面临的伦理问题。具体而言,它深入探讨了临床伦理支持(CES)工具的参与式开发,这些工具能够回应医疗从业者的需求和愿望,并针对其使用的特定护理情境进行定制。这种TB的参与式方法的理论基础源于诠释学伦理学和实用主义。作为一个例子,文中讨论了CURA的开发,CURA是一种面向姑息治疗领域医疗专业人员的低门槛CES工具。从这个例子可以清楚地看出,TB是一条双向道路。通过有效针对特定终端用户和护理情境的CES可以改进实践。反之,在共同创造过程中,通过参与CES开发实践所获得的见解可以丰富伦理理论。TB还是一条双向道路,因为它需要生物伦理学家和从业者的合作与投入,他们要参与相互学习的过程。然而,重大挑战依然存在。例如,为了满足特定医疗环境的限制,道德推理方法的调整程度是否存在限度?由谁来决定,是生物伦理学家还是从业者?