Abstract
ABSTRACT
Vulnerability is widely invoked in healthcare, bioethics, and nursing, yet it remains poorly defined because universal human susceptibility, situational exposure to harm, and clinical frailty are frequently treated as interchangeable. This conceptual ambiguity is particularly significant following a fall, when older adults may be understood predominantly through physical risk, functional decline, and the need for protection. Through an interpretative analysis drawing on nursing philosophy, feminist bioethics, phenomenological accounts of embodiment, and nursing ethics, this paper critically examines the distinction between frailty and vulnerability in older adults following a fall. It argues that frailty describes a multidimensional clinical condition involving reduced physiological reserve, whereas vulnerability also emerges through lived experience, relationships, material resources, and institutional practices. A fall may therefore intensify vulnerability not only through bodily disruption but also through changes in dependence, decision‐making authority, and participation in everyday life. Nursing care occupies an ethically ambivalent position within this process: protective interventions may reduce avoidable harm while simultaneously restricting agency or generating pathogenic vulnerability. To address this tension, the paper develops the concept of responsive protection as an ethical orientation for post‐fall nursing care. Responsive protection requires protective practices to be negotiated with older adults, proportionate to the risks and burdens involved, and revisable as circumstances and capacities change. The paper concludes that safety, relational autonomy, and dignity should be understood as interdependent dimensions of an ethical nursing response to post‐fall vulnerability.