In Defence of Moral Pluralism and Compromise in Health Care Networks

Health Care Analysis 26 (4):362-379 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The organisation of health care is rapidly changing. There is a trend to move away from individual health care institutions towards transmural integrated care and interorganizational collaboration in networks. However, within such collaboration and network there is often likely to be a pluralism of values as different health care institutions often have very different values. For this paper, we examine three different models of how we believe institutions can come to collaborate in networks, and thus reap the potential benefits of such collaboration, despite having different moral beliefs or values. A first way is the pragmatic way in which the different health care institutions avoid ethical reflection and focus on solutions. A second possible route is that of consensus where health care institutions base their collaboration on values that they all share. The third, and final, approach is that of compromise. Although moral compromise is often seen in a negative light, we argue that in many cases compromise might be necessary and ethically justified. In a final section, we will shift our focus from discussing various theoretical methods to allow collaboration to the potential content of consensus or compromise.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-03-29

Downloads
79 (#724,897)

6 months
35 (#242,639)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Moral Authority of Consensus.Paul Walker & Terence Lovat - 2022 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (3):443-456.
The Other – a troublesome dyad?Paul Walker & Terence Lovat - 2023 - Journal of Global Ethics 19 (2):135-149.
Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.Martin Langanke & Wenke Liedtke - 2026 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 21 (1):17.
Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.Wenke Liedtke & Martin Langanke - 2026 - Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 21 (1):17.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Political Liberalism.John Rawls - 1993 - Columbia University Press.
Principles of biomedical ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by James F. Childress.
Principles of biomedical ethics.Tom Beauchamp & James Childress - 2013 - Oxford University Press ER -.

View all 36 references / Add more references