Norm enforcement, learning and repair: three moral logics in organisational responses to unintended and unwanted healthcare outcomes

Unintended and unwanted outcomes are an inherent aspect of healthcare practice, posing significant moral challenges for organisations on how to do justice to the situation and the people involved, aimed at strengthening safety and preventing future harm. How an organisation responds to these outcomes is crucial, as this affects the quality of care, public trust and can have a profound impact on both patients and healthcare professionals. This paper develops a conceptual framework delineating three distinct moral logics for responding to unintended and unwanted outcomes: norm enforcement (1), learning (2) and repair (3). Enforcement logic (1) emphasises safeguarding patients by dealing with unprofessional or unlawful actions; learning logic (2) seeks to prevent recurrence by improving systems and practices; and repair logic (3) focuses on addressing harm to patients and restoring trust. Our analysis reveals that, while analytically distinct and potentially complementary, these moral logics often overlap in practice and may generate tensions because they rely on different understandings of justice, accountability and appropriate organisational response. Our analysis underscores both the distinctions between these logics and a selected set of tensions that arise when they intersect, focusing on three central configurations of tension while recognising that other combinations are also possible. We identify three key causes of tension: first, norm enforcement (1) allows little room for doubt or reflection, which is essential for learning (2) and repair (3); second, current quality and regulatory systems pay relatively little attention to repair (3); and third, societal demands for publicity and transparency put pressure on learning (2) and repair processes (3). Our study’s key contribution is recognising and understanding such moral logics and tensions. This can guide the development of more coherent and effective responses that ultimately enhance the quality of care and sustain trust in healthcare systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Published
2026-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2026-111894
Primary Topic
Ethics in medical practice
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Norm enforcement, learning and repair: three moral logics in organisational responses to unintended and unwanted healthcare outcomes

Laura Hartman, Eva van Baarle, Geranne Lautenbach, CEG
Journal of Medical Ethics
Ethics in medical practice
article

Norm enforcement, learning and repair: three moral logics in organisational responses to unintended and unwanted healthcare outcomes

Laura Hartman, Eva van Baarle, Geranne Lautenbach, CEG
article en

Abstract

Unintended and unwanted outcomes are an inherent aspect of healthcare practice, posing significant moral challenges for organisations on how to do justice to the situation and the people involved, aimed at strengthening safety and preventing future harm. How an organisation responds to these outcomes is crucial, as this affects the quality of care, public trust and can have a profound impact on both patients and healthcare professionals. This paper develops a conceptual framework delineating three distinct moral logics for responding to unintended and unwanted outcomes: norm enforcement (1), learning (2) and repair (3). Enforcement logic (1) emphasises safeguarding patients by dealing with unprofessional or unlawful actions; learning logic (2) seeks to prevent recurrence by improving systems and practices; and repair logic (3) focuses on addressing harm to patients and restoring trust. Our analysis reveals that, while analytically distinct and potentially complementary, these moral logics often overlap in practice and may generate tensions because they rely on different understandings of justice, accountability and appropriate organisational response. Our analysis underscores both the distinctions between these logics and a selected set of tensions that arise when they intersect, focusing on three central configurations of tension while recognising that other combinations are also possible. We identify three key causes of tension: first, norm enforcement (1) allows little room for doubt or reflection, which is essential for learning (2) and repair (3); second, current quality and regulatory systems pay relatively little attention to repair (3); and third, societal demands for publicity and transparency put pressure on learning (2) and repair processes (3). Our study’s key contribution is recognising and understanding such moral logics and tensions. This can guide the development of more coherent and effective responses that ultimately enhance the quality of care and sustain trust in healthcare systems.

Journal of Medical Ethics
Cal Humanities (US), The Centre for Health (New Zealand) (NZ), M&I/Partners (NL), Netherlands Defence Academy (NL), Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Ethics in medical practice
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.