Manufacturing safer medics

Jesudason, Edwin

doi:10.1136/jme-2022-108581

J Med Ethics

2022

DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108581

|View full text |Cite

Manufacturing safer medics

Edwin Jesudason

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Jesudason makes the distinction that Normalisation of Deviance (NoD) is well suited to understand institutional misfeasance but not malfeasance. [2] We are inclined to agree; NoD can do some things but not all. Likewise, our case study illustrates some aspects of organisational failure but not all (we return to this point below).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response to: Correspondence on ‘Organisational failure: rethinking whistleblowing for tomorrow’s doctors’ by Taylor and Goodwin

Goodwin

Taylor

2022

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Having stepped away from such grand claims, the commentators make some valid points to which we would like to respond more specifically. Jesudason makes the distinction that normalisation of deviance (NoD) is well suited to understand institutional misfeasance but not malfeasance 2. We are inclined to agree; NoD can do some things but not all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to: Correspondence on ‘Organisational failure: rethinking whistleblowing for tomorrow’s doctors’ by Taylor and Goodwin

Goodwin

Taylor

2022

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing the risk of NHS disasters

Jesudason

2023

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How could we better use public inquiries to stem the recurrence of healthcare failures? The question seems ever relevant, prompted this time by the inquiry into how former nurse Letby was able to murder newborns under National Health Service care. While criminality, like Letby’s, can be readily condemned, other factors like poor leadership and culture seem more often regretted than reformed. I would argue this is where inquiries struggle, in the space between ethics and law—with what is awful but lawful. In response, we should learn from progress with informed consent. Inquiries and civil litigation have seen uninformed ‘consent’ shift from being undesirable to unlawful. If better leadership and culture were sole drivers here, we would likely be doing far better in many other areas of healthcare too. Instead, one could argue that progress on consent has been made by reducingepistemic injustice—by naming and addressingepistemicissues in ways that enhancesocial powerfor patients. If this is an ingredient that transforms clinician–patient working, might it also shift conduct within other key relationships, by showing up what else should become unlawful and why? Namingmedical paternalismmay have helped with consent reform, so I continue this approach, first naming two areas of epistemic injustice:management feudalismandlegal chokeholds. Remedies are then considered, including the democratisation of management and reforms to legal ethics, legislation and litigation. In brief, public inquiries may improve if they also target epistemic injustices that should become unlawful. Focus on informed consent and epistemic relationships has improved the medical profession. Likewise, it could help healthcare leaders shift from fiat towards consent, and their lawyers from a stifling professional secrecy towards the kind of candour a prudent public expects.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Manufacturing safer medics

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Response to: Correspondence on ‘Organisational failure: rethinking whistleblowing for tomorrow’s doctors’ by Taylor and Goodwin

Response to: Correspondence on ‘Organisational failure: rethinking whistleblowing for tomorrow’s doctors’ by Taylor and Goodwin

Reducing the risk of NHS disasters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About