The Metaethics of Nursing Codes of Ethics and Conduct

Nursing codes of ethics and conduct are features of professional practice across the world, and in the UK, the regulator has recently consulted on and published a new code. Initially part of a professionalising agenda, nursing codes have recently come to represent a managerialist and disciplinary agenda and nursing can no longer be regarded as a self-regulating profession.This paper argues that codes of ethics and codes of conduct are significantly different in form and function similar to the difference between ethics and law in everyday life. Some codes successfully integrate these two functions within the same document, while others, principally the UK Code, conflate them resulting in an ambiguous document unable to fulfil its functions effectively. The paper analyses the differences between ethical- codes and conduct-codes by discussing titles, authorship, level, scope for disagreement, consequences of transgression, language and finally and possibly most importantly agent-centeredness. It is argued that conduct codes cannot require nurses to be compassionate because compassion involves an emotional response. The concept of kindness provides a plausible alternative for conduct-codes as it is possible to understand it solely in terms of acts. But if kindness is required in conduct-codes, investigation and possible censure follows from its absence. Using examples it is argued that there are at last five possible accounts of the absence of kindness. As well as being potentially problematic for disciplinary panels, difficulty in understanding the features of blameworthy absence of kindness may challenge UK nurses who, following a recently introduced revalidation procedure, are required to reflect on their practice in relation to The Code. It is concluded that closer attention to metaethical concerns by code writers will better support the functions of their issuing organisations.

Can the Revised UK Code Direct Practice?

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, the United Kingdom regulator of nursing and midwifery has recently revised its professional code of practice. This paper begins by arguing that a professional code must be capable of sustaining close reading and of action guidance. Using four exemplar clauses it is argued that the new revised code does not met this purpose. First, I show that in setting out requirements for consent and documentation, the meaning of the relevant clause has changed significantly during the editing process so that a literal reading of the final document bears little relation to established professional practice. Second, I argue that the clause concerning the nature of professional relationships has also been altered during the editing process so that it is inconsistent with other professional groups and established accounts of the professional nurse-patient relationship. Third, I argue that the clause concerning disclosure of confidential information, which survived revision and editing with its meaning intact is nevertheless factually incorrect and inconsistent with UK law and authoritative guidance. Finally, fourth, I argue that use of the word ‘inappropriate’ is inappropriate as it amounts to meaningless circularity, discussed in relation to a clause on expressing personal beliefs. Taken together, these examples demonstrate that the Code is seriously flawed and does not fulfil its purpose. One way that simple prescriptive clauses in the Code can be usefully understood is through the provision of detailed guidance. I argue that the NMC has changed its position on its view of the value of guidance and has significantly reduced the amount of written guidance and advice is provides. The paper concludes by arguing that in order to meet its action directing function, further clarifying revision and the provision of detailed guidance is required.