Always a burden? Healthcare providers’ perspectives on moral distress
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Moral distress is always a burden. Moral stress is not. The importance of a priori conceptual clarity.

    It is a deleterious proposition to declare benefits to moral distress. In their recent response, Epstein and Hurst (2017) eloquently articulated many reasons for this. A better approach may be to invoke the work of Hans Selye (1974) and the parallels drawn by Rambur, Vallett, Cohen, and Tarule (2010) in advocating for the potential benefits of moral stress; not moral distress. The authors of the present article effectively revealed clinicians' general misunderstanding and misapplication of the concept of moral distress. Indeed, the authors acknowledged this explicitly: "This study demonstrates the importance of asking what clinical providers mean by 'moral distress' and/or what researchers mean when investigating this phenomenon" (p. F4). The authors' conclusions about frequency of moral distress and "inevitability" of moral distress are based on clinician self-report; not on a generally accepted definition of moral distress. Likewise, the authors do not use a validated, reliable tool to quantify moral distress (such as the Moral Distress Thermometer, Wocial & Weaver, 2013). Much qualitative research has been done that has clarified the concept of moral distress; it is not simply whatever the clinician says it is. As ethicist Denise Dudzinski (2016) stated, "clinicians benefit by distinguishing between distress and moral distress" and "without mapping the ethical dimensions of distress, clinicians are left...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.