Literature DB >> 25349543

A comparative analysis of moral principles and behavioral norms in eight ethical codes relevant to health sciences librarianship, medical informatics, and the health professions.

Gary D Byrd1, Peter Winkelstein1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Based on the authors' shared interest in the interprofessional challenges surrounding health information management, this study explores the degree to which librarians, informatics professionals, and core health professionals in medicine, nursing, and public health share common ethical behavior norms grounded in moral principles.
METHODS: Using the "Principlism" framework from a widely cited textbook of biomedical ethics, the authors analyze the statements in the ethical codes for associations of librarians (Medical Library Association [MLA], American Library Association, and Special Libraries Association), informatics professionals (American Medical Informatics Association [AMIA] and American Health Information Management Association), and core health professionals (American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, and American Public Health Association). This analysis focuses on whether and how the statements in these eight codes specify core moral norms (Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice), core behavioral norms (Veracity, Privacy, Confidentiality, and Fidelity), and other norms that are empirically derived from the code statements.
RESULTS: These eight ethical codes share a large number of common behavioral norms based most frequently on the principle of Beneficence, then on Autonomy and Justice, but rarely on Non-Maleficence. The MLA and AMIA codes share the largest number of common behavioral norms, and these two associations also share many norms with the other six associations. IMPLICATIONS: The shared core of behavioral norms among these professions, all grounded in core moral principles, point to many opportunities for building effective interprofessional communication and collaboration regarding the development, management, and use of health information resources and technologies.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25349543      PMCID: PMC4188052          DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.4.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 1536-5050


  6 in total

Review 1.  Use of the Hippocratic Oath: a review of twentieth century practice and a content analysis of oaths administered in medical schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993.

Authors:  R D Orr; N Pang; E D Pellegrino; M Siegler
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  1997

2.  Health sciences librarians' awareness and assessment of the Medical Library Association Code of Ethics for Health Sciences Librarianship: the results of a membership survey.

Authors:  Gary D Byrd; Patricia J Devine; Kate E Corcoran
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2014-10

3.  Ethics in health sciences librarianship.

Authors:  J M Hurych; A C Glenn
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  1987-10

4.  Content analyses of oaths administered at U.S. medical schools in 2000.

Authors:  Audiey C Kao; Kayhan P Parsi
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Gaps, conflicts, and consensus in the ethics statements of professional associations, medical groups, and health plans.

Authors:  N D Berkman; M K Wynia; L R Churchill
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Ethical principles contained in currently professed medical oaths.

Authors:  E Dickstein; J Erlen; J A Erlen
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 6.893

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.