Prescriptive language in NMC nursing standards

Abstract

This paper examines imperative language in the professional Code of conduct in Nursing and Midwifery (NMC, 2018), using the philosophical arguments of moral ethics through the lens’ of Immanuel Kant (1785) and Richard Hare (1952). A professional code is used in many high-risk professions to set industry standards and parity across the workforce. Professions usually adopt a code of standards, ethics, or conduct (Crystal & Giesel, 2024). It is argued here that the equivocation is a key indicator that sets nursing and midwifery apart from other professions. Codes of standards and ethics align more readily with how a person behaves in practice; whereas codes of conduct govern beyond the workplace and include personal attributes (Aibar-Guzmán et al., 2023). The shift, from principles that adopt characteristics of performance, to attributes which espouse essential behaviours, suggests the differences becomes functional as the language used to ascribe behaviour has to perform differently (alongside those adhering to it). Used in an unchecked way, a code can neutralise autonomy and creativity and, in the extreme, can neutralise the professional’s career entirely (Mishra & Aithal, 2023). Any code is predicated on language and Kant (1785) and Hare (1952) were interested in the language that accompanied everyday life in what is more formally recognised as the logical study of the language of morals (Hare, 1952). Some of the separate positionalist critiques of Kant and Hare are used here to support an analysis of the Code and its use of language in determining professional character and behaviour. It is argued that while a code is needed, the NMC rests on the axle of good and bad which challenges the writings of Kant and Hare, who open moral language to one that tries to work out the tension between that dialectic.