Professional choice as a moral dilemma for doctors in the context of COVID-19

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

Introduction. The COVID-19 pandemic has added new semantic trend to the problem of the professional choice of doctors through a change in the conditions of their activities in the direction of intensifying tasks, complicating the possibilities for their implementation, and multiplying the uncertainty of the efforts made.

The purpose of the study. Assessing the professional choice of doctors in the context of COVID-19 when solving moral dilemmas.

Material and methods. The total sample size was four hundred twenty nine people (doctors of various surgical and therapeutic specialties) aged of 25–32 years. All doctors had at least 1.5 years of practical experience in COVID-19 conditions. The study was conducted using a questionnaire developed by the author, containing 24 moral dilemmas related to professional decision-making.

Results. Regardless of the doctor’s profile, professional choice is made in favour of patients of the same gender as the doctor. At the same time, both male and female doctors strive to save young patients (up to 50 years old) with chronic diseases. At the same time, it should be noted that the profile (therapeutic or surgical) of a doctor and his specialty also influence the criteria for choosing professional decisions. Clear criteria in the situation of moral choice have not been established only in the group of ophthalmologists.

Limitations. Excluded from participation in the study were pediatricians and dentists, as well as doctors who lack professional experience in the context of COVID-19.

Conclusion. As a result of the study, it was found that regardless of the working conditions (in the red zone for COVID-19, in the green zone), both male and female doctors choose in favour of patients of the same gender. At the same time, doctors working in the red zone on COVID-19 make a professional choice in a situation of moral choice in favour of young patients of the same gender with chronic diseases. Physicians working in the green zone make the choice to rescue elderly patients of the same gender as physicians.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Fundamentals of Legislation «On the Protection of the Health of Citizens». All participants signed an informed consent for the examination (extract from the protocol of the meeting of the ethical committee No. 6 dated April 15, 2021).

Contribution of the authors:
Nikishina V.B. — the concept and design of the study, writing the text, editing, approval of the final version of the article;
Petrash E.A. — writing the text, editing, responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the article;
Morgun A.N. — collection and processing of material, statistical processing of data;
Morgun L.A. — collection and processing of material, statistical processing of data;
Nedurueva T.V. — collection and processing of material, statistical processing of data.

Acknowledgment. The study had no sponsorship.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: February 09, 2022
Accepted: March 16, 2022
Published: April 28, 2023

作者简介

Vera Nikishina

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2421-3652
俄罗斯联邦

Ekaterina Petrash

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: petrash@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3177-088X

MD, PhD, DSci., Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Clinical Psychology and Social Work, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation.

e-mail: petrash@mail.ru 

俄罗斯联邦

Aleksey Morgun

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5333-2282
俄罗斯联邦

Lyubov Morgun

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1099-485X
俄罗斯联邦

Tatyana Nedurueva

Kursk State Medical University

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3694-1710
俄罗斯联邦

参考

  1. Patil I., Silani G. Alexithymia increases moral acceptability of accidental harms. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2014; 26(5): 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.929137
  2. Patil I., Zucchelli M.M., Kool W., Campbell S., Fornasier F., Calò M., et al. Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2021; 120(2): 443–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281
  3. Kahane G., Shackel N. Do abnormal responses show utilitarian bias? Nature. 2008; 452(7185): E5–E6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06785
  4. Conway P., Weiss A., Burgmer P., Mussweiler T. Distrusting your moral compass: The impact of distrust mindsets on moral dilemma processing and judgments. Soc. Cogn. 2018; 36(3): 345–80
  5. Kohlberg L. The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. J. Philos. 1973; 70(18): 630–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025030
  6. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science. 2007; 316(5827): 798–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651
  7. Chorus C.G. Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis. J. Choice Model. 2015; 16: 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2015.08.001
  8. Znamenskaya I.I., Sozinova I.M., Aleksandrov Yu.I. Moral dilemmas as a tool of psychological research. In: Procedures and Methods of Experimental Psychological Research. Series «Integration of Academic and University Psychology» [Protsedury i metody eksperimental’no-psikhologicheskikh issledovaniy. Seriya «Integratsiya akademicheskoy i universitetskoy psikhologii»]. Moscow; 2016: 741–7. (in Russian)
  9. Vonasch A.J., Sjåstad H. Future-orientation (as trait and state) promotes reputation-protective choice in moral dilemmas. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2021; 12(3): 383–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619899257
  10. Borges L.M., Barnes S.M., Farnsworth J.K., Drescher K.D., Walser R.D. A contextual behavioral approach for responding to moral dilemmas in the age of COVID-19. J. Contextual Behav. Science. 2020; 17: 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.06.006
  11. Gawronski B. Moral impressions and presumed moral choices: Perceptions of how moral exemplars resolve moral dilemmas. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2022; 99: 104–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104265
  12. Rosanel S., Fogel J. Moral dilemma of a physician and mother in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. South. Med. J. 2020; 113(8): 384–5. https://doi.org/10.14423/smj.0000000000001125
  13. Chehrehgosha M. The unpreparedness of the healthcare system for the management of COVID-19 pandemic leading to the mistreatment of the elderly: a newly emerging moral dilemma. J. Nutr. Health Aging. 2020; 24(9): 973–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-020-1410-8
  14. Li Y.T., Ng J. Moral dilemma of striking: a medical worker’s response to job duty, public health protection and the politicization of strikes. Work Employ. Soc. 2021; 0950017020981554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020981554
  15. Dunham A.M., Rieder T.N., Humbyrd C.J. A bioethical perspective for navigating moral dilemmas amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2020; 28(11): 471–6. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00371
  16. Miziara I.D., Galego M.C.S.M. Patients waiting lists and the COVID-19 pandemic: a moral dilemma. Perioper. Care Oper. Room Manag. 2021; 24: 100200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcorm.2021.100200
  17. Li Z., Gao L., Zhao X., Li B. Deconfounding the effects of acute stress on abstract moral dilemma judgment. Curr. Psychol. 2021; 40(10): 5005–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00453-0
  18. Swazo N.K., Talukder M.M.H., Ahsan M.K. A duty to treat? A right to refrain? Bangladeshi physicians in moral dilemma during COVID-19. Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 2020; 15(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-020-00091-6

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载

版权所有 © Nikishina V.B., Petrash E.A., Morgun A.N., Morgun L.A., Nedurueva T.V., 2023

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名 4.0国际许可协议的许可
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ:  ПИ № ФС77-50668 от 13.07.2012 г.