Peter-Kevern-who-can-give-spiritual-care
Shared by: liuqingyan
-
Stats
- views:
- 2
- posted:
- 10/13/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 9
Document Sample


Peter Kevern 2011
The Problem:
Health care workers are reluctant to discuss spiritual
issues with patients because of concerns about:
Competence.
Autonomy.
Neutrality.
(Curlin & Hall 2004)
This is a particular problem for ‘spiritual
values’ because
(a) By definition, the 'spiritual' is not
empirical.
(b) as 'values', it relates to matters understood
to be of core (though not necessarily
'ultimate') concern.
So e.g. A nurse who engages in a conversation on spiritual values with a
patient enters unknown territory, and high-profile cases (such as that of
Caroline Petrie where a complaint was occasioned by the ‘religious’
behaviour of a nurse) have increased the sense that it is full of ethical and
professional pitfalls (Alderson 2009).
One proposed solution
. . . is to find common ground in the conduct of the
interaction rather than its content (Pesut 2010, Carr
2010)
But can you have an interaction without
content? And if not . . .
Who gets to talk about it?
And how?
Religion and spirituality in a secular, European
context.
Getting to grips with the issues
Regardless of religious conviction, we all share a context that is
Secular: a shared belief is not assumed
Pluralist: whatever we believe, we will encounter others who believe
differently
Therefore, all our belief is ‘postcritical’ in one of 4 ways
(Duriez & Hutsebaut 2003):
Include transcendence
Literal
affirmation Restorative
(orthodoxy) interpretation
(second
naivete)
Literal Received religion Symbolic
Reductive
Literal interpretation
disaffirmation (relativism)
(secular crit)
Exclude transcendence
This provides us with a grid of
possibilities:
Patient > 1. Orthodoxy 2. External 3. Relativism 4. Second-naivete
Nurse v Critique
1. Orthodoxy
No No (No) (No)
2. External
No No (No) (No)
Critique
3. Relativism
(Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes
4. Second-naivete
(Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes
Possibilities for therapeutically-useful nurse-patient encounter on spiritual values.
. . . which identifies 4 key groups of
practitioners:
1. Inflexible literalists, who should not be encouraged to
undertake spiritual care outside their own group !
2. Pragmatic literalists, who subordinate their beliefs to the
ethics of care, and who may be articulate and competent
in spiritual care of those who themselves have open
beliefs
3. Those who have a ‘postcritical’ approach, being clear of
what they believe but open to others, who may be the
natural all-rounders and
4. Those who value belief, but sit lightly to it (relativists),
who may need to be positively encouraged to attempt
spiritual care.
References
Alderson, A. (2009) Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly
patient's recovery , The Telegraph Online, obtainable from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-
suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html
Carr , T.J.(2010) Facing Existential Realities: Exploring Barriers and
Challenges to Spiritual Nursing Care Qualitative Health Research
20:1379–1392
Duriez, B. and Hutsebaut, D, (2003) A slow and easy introduction to the
Post-Critical Belief Scale: Internal structure and external relationships
in Hutsebaut, D. Handbook of the Psychology of Religion
Pesut, B. (2010)Ontologies of nursing in an age of spiritual pluralism:
closed or open worldview? Nursing Philosophy 11: 15-23
Get documents about "