Martine Kruijtbosch

145 Mo ra l case de l i be ra t i on phase (steps 8 and 9). The facilitator’s task is to activate participants’ ethical competencies without interfering with the content of the dilemma case. 3,33 In this role, the facilitator stimulates the deliberation by encouraging the participants to reflect, ask open questions and listen carefully to each other. The facilitator challenges presuppositions and prejudices with critical questioning to stimulate participants to substantiate those assumptions with moral arguments. The facilitator sees to it that the participants’ underlying values become transparent and meaningful in the context of the dilemma case. During phase 1, the CP shares the dilemma case as a factual situation in a timeline. The CP explains why that situation posed a moral dilemma to him or her and when the dilemma was most strongly felt. 14 In steps 2–4, facts, their meaning, related emotions and values are jointly investigated. The contextual knowledge and insights gained, help the CP to identify and formulate the moral question underlying the dilemma as authentically as possible. The CP also shares the action options at the time of the dilemma and elaborates on those options’ negative moral consequences. In step 5, the value perspectives and related actions of the different parties involved are investigated in the context of the facts as experienced by the CP. The CP explains which value perspectives would mostly motivate him or her to choose the different action options, revealing the value conflict of the dilemma. Sometimes, other participants choose conflicting values. In step 6, the participants brainstorm alternative action options for handling the moral dilemma. The clear picture of the dilemma obtained in phase 1 is a prerequisite for the judgment-formation phase (step 7). Here, the participants elaborate on their personal moral judgments regarding the handling of the dilemma case by answering five questions (Box 1). In phase 3, the decision-making phase, the participants formulate answers. In steps 8 and 9, the deliberation focuses on consensus and differences in moral arguments between the participants regarding their personal decisions formulated individually in the judgment-formation phase. Lastly, in step 10, the participants evaluate the MCD session. The aims and procedures of each step were summarized in a facilitator manual by MK to be able to compare both MCD sessions. Given the limitations for physical meetings due to COVID-19, Microsoft Teams videoconferencing was used for both MCD sessions.