Abstract:Intensive care unit (ICU) professionals engage in ethical decision making under conditions of high stakes, great uncertainty, time-sensitivity and frequent irreversibility of action. Casuistry is a way by which actionable knowledge is obtained through comparing a patient case to previous cases from experience in clinical practice. However, within the field of study as well as in practice, evidence-based medicine is the dominant epistemic framework. This multiple case study evaluated the use of casuistic reasoning by intensive care unit (ICU) professionals during moral case deliberation. It took place in two Dutch hospitals between June 2020 and June 2022. Twentyfive moral case deliberations from ICU practice were recorded and analyzed using discourse analysis. Additionally, 47 interviews were held with ICU professionals who participated in these deliberations, analyzed using thematic analysis. We found that ICU professionals made considerable use of case comparisons when discussing continuation, withdrawal or limitation. Analogies played a role in justifying or complicating moral judgements, and also played a role in addressing moral distress. The language of case-based arguments is most often not overtly normative. Rather, the data shows that casuistic reasoning deals with the medical, ethical and contextual elements of decisions in an integrated manner. Facilitators of MCD have an essential role in (supporting ICU professionals in) scrutinizing casuistic arguments. The data shows that during MCD, actual reasoning often deviated from principle- and rule-based reasoning which ICU professionals preferred themselves. Evidence-based arguments often gained the character of analogical arguments, especially when a patient-at-hand was seen as highly unique from the average patients in the literature. Casuistic arguments disguised as evidence-based arguments may therefore provide ICU professionals with a false sense of certainty. Within education, we should strive to train clinicians and ethics facilitators so that they can recognize and evaluate casuistic arguments.

The jury shall decide!

The paradox of case management

Contradictions in case management: client-centered theory and directive practice with frail elderly

Attorney-case manager collaboration in the conservatorship of older adults

A Case-Based Study Of Jury Instructions In Hong Kong

Ethical Issues in Community Mental Health: Cases and Conflicts

Ethics in Practice: Managed Care and the Changing Health Care Environment

Corporate social responsibility and the future health care manager

Dementia with Aggressive Behavior and an Adverse Outcome in a Memory Disorders Facility; A Mock Trial

The Need for an Effective Process to Resolve Conflicts Over Medical Futility: A Case Study and Analysis

Case management in complex fraud trials: actors and strategies in achieving procedural efficiency

A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness

Australian Criminal Justice Students as Prospective Case Managers: Exploring Their Client Preferences

Case management and patient safety: opportunities for process and performance improvement

Case management's value is finally recognized. What happens now?

Professionals' decision-making about out-of-home placements following instances of child abuse

How to avoid bad decisions that can ruin your career

Professional judgement in clinical practice (part 3): A better alternative to strong evidence-based medicine

Evaluating the use of casuistry during moral case deliberation in the ICU: A multiple qualitative case study

Caremark Compliance for the Next Twenty-Five Years

Vagueness and Ambiguity in Communication of Case Management: A Content Analysis in the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme