Philosophical Perspectives on Trustworthiness and Open-mindedness as Professional Virtues for the Practice of Nursing: Implications for he Moral Education of Nurses

On this account those whose mental development does not match their physical
development might be considered more-than-ordinarily vulnerable; those who are
likely to fall asleep at any time of day while undertaking any activity would be more-
than-ordinarily vulnerable; and those who become so distracted that it interferes with
their normal everyday functioning are also more-than-ordinarily vulnerable. Thus we
recognise that not only are we more vulnerable at some times within our ordinary
vulnerability but also that we may become more-than-ordinarily vulnerable. And it is
reasonable to suppose that when we require the services of health care workers in
general and of nurses in particular we are or have become more-than-ordinarily
vulnerable.

The purpose of differentiating between these two senses of vulnerability is twofold. It
provides a basis for establishing the meaning of the technical, but often unarticulated,
way in which the term vulnerable is employed to categorise particular groups and
individuals, and it also serves as a reminder of our shared human frailty. Despite our
everyday vulnerability we do retain a capacity for flourishing as human beings. It is true
that there are many threats that pose a risk to our well-being and it is also true that these
threats are threats precisely because of our ordinary human vulnerability, but our
ordinary everyday vulnerability does not, of itself, prevent our flourishing. Ordinary
people with ordinary vulnerabilities do flourish in the world in spite of the myriad risks
of harm to which we are all exposed. Of course, this is an artificial dichotomy that is, at
least to some extent, socially constructed and its imposition can lead us to forget our
own essential vulnerability. To describe some individuals and groups as vulnerable
suggests that others are in some sense invulnerable, or non-vulnerable - a claim that
cannot be sustained. What follows from this is the recognition that our vulnerability is a
matter of degree and that when we say we are vulnerable what we mean is that we are
vulnerable to something. We are ordinarily vulnerable just so long as we retain the
capacity to act in ways that offer us some protection against the everyday harms to
which we are all vulnerable (albeit that we must at the same time take some things on
trust). We are more-than-ordinarily vulnerable when, for whatever reason, we do not
have that capacity. So our vulnerability is not merely a function of the extent of our
exposure to harm but it is also a function of our capacity for self-protection.

A person who has their protective capacities intact and who is exposed, for the most
part, to type 1 risks of harm (those against which we have the possibility of taking

47

<<   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   >>

More intriguing information