The influence of gender on conflicts of interest in the allocation of limited critical care resources: Justice versus care

Abstract

After noting that the principle of autonomy has been inadequate for the resolution of many of the complex and difficult moral dilemmas involving conflicts of interest in the allocation of limited critical care resources, this paper analyzes the concepts of justice and care as alternative solutions to moral problems and applies them to the issue of repeat organ transplants to a single recipient. These concepts are found to be the basis of the notions of moral reasoning and moral orientation, respectively, which serve in moral development theory as two fundamentally different ways to approach moral problem solving. Following an elaboration of moral reasoning as found in Kohlberg's cognitive moral development theory, the influence of gender on moral reasoning is investigated. The empirical data show that women (mean Defining Issues Test score, 47.18) score significantly higher ( P ≤ .0001) than men (mean Defining Issues Test score, 41.77) in the use of moral reasoning based on the concept of justice for resolving moral dilemmas. Following an elaboration of moral orientation as found in Gilligan's moral theory of the ethics of care, the influence of gender on moral orientation is investigated. The empirical data show that women use the concept of care significantly more often ( P ≤ .0139) than their male colleagues in resolving moral dilemmas. From these data it is concluded that men are more likely than women to use justice in the resolution of moral dilemmas, such as the conflicts of interest in the allocation of limited critical care resources, but that if women do use, or are required by the social system to use, justice in the resolution of moral dilemmas, they do a better job of it than men.