NEWS ADVISORY: A Clinician’s Guide to Managing Moral Distress

September 12, 2013

To: Reporters, editors, broadcasters and producers

Subject:
Johns Hopkins nurse-bioethicist discloses rising concerns about the toll of “moral distress” among nurses and physicians caring for seriously and terminally ill people in the era of health care reform.

Background:
As health care reform takes shape in the U.S., vast amounts of attention have been given to the fact that more and more people with pre-existing illnesses will have access to professional care to relieve their physical and emotional suffering. Far less public attention has been given to the nurses and physicians who provide that care, and the authors of a recent study say there is evidence that many already experience serious “moral distress” that may interfere with their own health and their efforts on behalf of seriously ill and dying patients.

“Studies and case histories suggest that clinicians may experience feelings such as empathy, tenderness, sadness, remorse, shame or anger in response to perceived conflicts in values, interpersonal disagreements and institutional constraints,” says Cynda Rushton, PhD, RN, FAAN, a nurse ethicist specializing in palliative and end-of-life care. Rushton is the Anne and George L. Bunting Professor of Clinical Ethics, a joint faculty position at Johns Hopkins’ School of Nursing and Berman Institute of Bioethics.

In a pair of articles published in the Journal of Palliative Medicine, Rushton and her colleagues explain how a clinician’s physical and emotional experience of moral distress can be detrimental to the patient and themselves, and how by learning to stabilize their own nervous system and emotional reaction, they can respond in a more principled, compassionate manner.  The authors propose a framework for “creating a healthy work environment supporting clinicians to practice with integrity” and reducing the toll on caregivers and patients alike.

“Conflicts of conscience are common among clinicians, particularly involving the care of patients at the end of life,” they write. For example, “some… may have concluded it was unconscionable to participate in [care] that caused disproportionate suffering and pursue goals perceived as unattainable.”

The authors add, “Clinicians struggling to address the dissonance between what they are doing and their professional roles often express this conflict as a lament of ‘why are we doing this?’ Coupled with an experience of injustice on behalf of the patient and/or broader society, this conflict can lead to unhealthy emotional arousal and moral distress. Acting against informed moral judgment creates a conflict of conscience by abandoning, consciously or unconsciously, convictions, ethical values or norms, and/or personal integrity.”

Interview Opportunity:
Rushton is available to discuss the proposed framework, which, the team writes, “offers a promising approach to designing interventions that help clinicians mitigate the detrimental consequences of unregulated moral distress and to build the resilience necessary to sustain themselves in clinical service.” 

“Like their patients,” the team adds, “clinicians suffer as they attempt to fulfill their ethical obligations and maintain their integrity as individuals and professionals,” and there are “instances when the balance of benefit and burden that patients must tolerate to live longer becomes untenable.”

Rushton also can put the issue in the context of an aging population, a health care system confronted with serious change and cost issues, and ever-increasing attention to end-of-life decision-making and the limits of life-sustaining treatments.

# # #

Media Contact:
Leah Ramsay
202.642.9640
lramsay@jhu.edu