Reconceptualizing Ethics Through Morbidity and Mortality Rounds

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons face ethical tensions daily, yet ethics education continues to prove challenging. Two possible reasons for these challenges may be the different conceptions of knowledge between technical training vs those that underpin ethical practice, and the potential devaluing of ethics as a focus for education given false assumptions about its inherent nature. This study implemented and evaluated an innovation meant to prioritize and contextualize ethics in surgical learning and practice. STUDY DESIGN: After implementation of Ethics Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) rounds as an educational intervention, a qualitative evaluation consisted of interviews with 12 residents and 9 faculty. Analysis was informed by principles of constructivist grounded theory and the theoretical framework of Habermas' 3 types of knowledge: technical, practical, and emancipatory. For comparative purposes, analysis was conducted of how participants described ethics and ethics education and learning in relation to the traditional ethics teaching model vs the M&Ms. RESULTS: In the traditional model, ethics teaching was seen as disconnected from real life, and not valuable. Within M&Ms, ethics was viewed as integral to practice, engaging, valuable, and relevant. In the traditional model, ethics principles were seen as acquired through role modeling and as a fixed part of character. Within M&Ms, ethics principles were seen as learnable and transformable parts of identity. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional teaching of surgical ethics may result in physicians armed with knowledge, but unable to apply it. Our findings suggest that incorporating ethics into M&Ms allows not only learning the tools of ethics, but the knowledge that ethical principles were becoming integrated into professional identity.

Topics & Concepts