Practical Frameworks for Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Psychology

Rilen, S. (2026).

Journal of Forensic Psychology Research

and Practice, 1–39.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2026.2630383

The article is paywalled. Please contact the author for a copy of this article.

Abstract

The American Psychological Association (APA) provides broad guidance for generative Artificial Intelligence (gAI) use, yet forensic practice requires a specialized context for adversarial settings. This article proposes a four-step operational framework for ethical gAI integration grounded in forensic admissibility. It establishes operational mandates and readiness assessments followed by a risk-stratification model for tool selection distinguishing convergent from divergent tasks. It differentiates substantive from peripheral uses to guide disclosure decisions, and addresses admissibility considerations under Daubert and Frye. Sample disclosure language and visual aids help experts preserve credibility through methodological verification and systematic procedural rigor, rather than algorithmic trust.

Here are some thoughts:

The article establishes that while generative AI offers significant potential to enhance forensic psychology, its integration must be governed by a strict, four-step framework that prioritizes practitioner accountability, methodological transparency, and data security. Central to this is the principle of non-delegation of cognition, which mandates that forensic experts retain full ownership of all analytical reasoning and conclusions, using gAI only as an augmentative tool rather than a substitute for professional judgment. All gAI output must be treated with a zero-trust verification approach, requiring independent validation against primary sources to guard against hallucinations, omissions, and algorithmic bias. Furthermore, the framework draws a critical distinction between substantive use—which materially influences opinions and requires proactive disclosure in court reports—and peripheral use, which involves administrative support and only requires informed consent. Given the adversarial legal context, practitioners must demonstrate technical competence to explain gAI's probabilistic nature and limitations, ensuring their methodology can withstand scrutiny under Daubert or Frye standards. Data privacy is paramount, necessitating enterprise-grade tools with robust security pillars, including data quarantine and encryption, to preserve legal privilege. Ultimately, the article emphasizes that forensic practitioners are the gatekeepers of their methodology, and by embracing rigor, transparency, and continuous self-assessment, they can harness gAI's benefits while safeguarding the integrity of the justice system.

Principled by Design: Ethical Decision-making with Integrity

Gavazzi, J. (2026).

www.ethicalpsychology.com

This article is self-published for inclusion in a home study offered through the Pennsylvania Psychological Association. The home study promotes a structured approach to ethical decision-making, designed to support self-reflective practice.

Clinical Impact Statement

This article offers psychologists a practical, principle-based framework for working through ethical dilemmas in clinical practice. By treating autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and fidelity as competing obligations to be specified and balanced rather than rules to be memorized, the framework helps clinicians reason transparently through situations in which the Ethics Code alone does not provide clear direction. It supports more defensible decisions, stronger therapeutic relationships, and the kind of reflective practice that treats ethics as an aspiration rather than a minimum standard.

The article is here.

The companion worksheet is here.

The use and misuse of informed consent in reporting sexual intimacy violations.

Behnke, S. H., Thomas, J. T., et al. (2023).

Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 54(2), 135–146.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000510

Abstract

A client’s disclosure of sexual contact with a previous treating psychologist raises challenging ethical, legal, and clinical considerations. Following a vignette that describes a psychologist’s thoughtful anticipation of such a disclosure by amending his informed consent form to allow reporting of previous sexual contact with a psychotherapist, these articles explore how the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code, jurisdictional laws, and clinical considerations contribute to a psychologist’s decision-making in such a circumstance. The articles discuss ways to integrate ethics, law, and clinical care in the psychologist’s response to the client’s disclosure.

Public Significance Statement—This article addresses psychologist-client sexual contact. This issue is significant to promote client autonomy, to protect the public, and to enhance the ethics and integrity of the profession.

Here are some thoughts:

This article offers a rich, multidimensional exploration of a complex ethical dilemma: how a current treating psychologist should respond when a client discloses sexual contact with a previous therapist. Rather than presenting a single authoritative stance, the article thoughtfully weaves together multiple, diverse perspectives—ethical, legal, clinical, feminist, and philosophical—demonstrating the nuanced reality of ethical decision-making in psychology.

Stephen Behnke grounds the discussion in the APA Ethics Code and jurisdictional law, introducing a pragmatic “three-door” framework (client consent, legal mandate, legal permission) to guide disclosure decisions. 

Janet Thomas builds on this by emphasizing the primacy of the therapeutic alliance and warning against well-intentioned but potentially coercive practices that prioritize professional or societal agendas over the client’s healing process.

Lenore Walker adds a critical feminist and trauma-informed lens, arguing that mandatory reporting—even if framed as protective—can retraumatize survivors by stripping them of autonomy, echoing broader concerns about institutional betrayal. 

Finally, David DeMatteo introduces a philosophical dimension, contrasting deontological (duty-based) and teleological (consequence-based) ethics to illustrate how competing moral frameworks can lead to divergent conclusions in the absence of clear legal mandates. Together, these perspectives underscore that ethical practice is not merely about rule-following but requires ongoing reflection, contextual awareness, and a deep commitment to client self-determination.

The article thus models integrative ethical reasoning—balancing professional responsibility with clinical sensitivity, legal compliance with human dignity, and societal protection with individual healing.

Turn it and Turn it Again: The Updated Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making

McAuliffe, D., & Greenslade, L. (2025).

Ethics and Social Welfare, 1–13.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2025.2483668

Abstract

Ethical decision making is a critical skill for practitioners of all disciplines in the social, health and human services. Having capacity to engage proactively with decisions that will impact people’s lives in a way that is rigorous, principled, and considered, is the hallmark of an ethically competent practitioner. There have been multiple models of ethical decision making that have provided structured examples of the questions that should be asked of self and others while navigating an ethical dilemma. The Inclusive Model of ethical decision-making was first published by McAuliffe & Chenoweth in this journal in 2008. In reviewing the Inclusive model some 15 years since its original development, it is timely to reconsider the value of incorporating a 5th ethical platform, conceptualised as Interdependence, to draw on the importance of the relationships between humans, non-humans, and the natural world. This paper provides an extension of previous work to bring the Inclusive model of ethical decision making to a better coherence with current developments in both theory and practice.

Here are some thoughts:

This article presents an updated, practical ethical decision-making model that explicitly incorporates "Interdependence," urging practitioners to consider the impact of their decisions on relationships, non-human animals, and the environment—areas increasingly relevant to holistic client care. The model’s structured, five-step process (defining the dilemma, mapping legitimacy, gathering information, considering alternatives, and critical evaluation) provides a clear, systematic framework for navigating complex real-world dilemmas, which is invaluable in clinical practice. Furthermore, its emphasis on consultation, cultural sensitivity, and critical reflection aligns with core psychological competencies, making it a versatile tool for individual practitioners and interdisciplinary teams.

Pitfalls in Ethical Decision-Making: Settling, Fading, and Drift in Psychological Practice

Gavazzi, J. D., & Knapp, S. K. (2025, September).

Psychotherapy Bulletin, 60(4).

The article is here.

In this article, we examine three insidious yet common processes that can erode ethical integrity in psychological practice: ethical settling, ethical fading, and ethical drift. Ethical settling occurs when practitioners limit their conduct to the bare minimum required by law or code, sacrificing aspirational ethics for mere compliance. Ethical fading describes the unconscious displacement of ethical considerations by competing priorities such as efficiency, convenience, or social pressures. Ethical drift involves the gradual, often rationalized, deviation from professional standards, where clinicians knowingly justify increasingly problematic behaviors under the guise of good intentions or contextual necessity. Through illustrative case examples and integration of current literature, the article underscores how even well-meaning psychologists can inadvertently compromise patient care and professional boundaries. To counter these risks, the authors advocate for a “positive ethics” approach—grounded in beneficence, autonomy, and ongoing moral reflection—and offer concrete recommendations: embedding ethical awareness into daily practice, engaging in regular self-reflection and peer consultation, and utilizing structured ethical decision-making models. This article serves as both a caution and a call to action, urging psychologists to move beyond risk avoidance toward a sustained commitment to excellence, integrity, and the highest ideals of the profession.

Could “The Wonder Equation” help us to be more ethical? A personal reflection

Somerville, M. A. (2021).

Ethics & Behavior, 32(3), 226–240.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1867861

Abstract

This is a personal reflection on what I have learnt as an academic, researching, teaching and participating in the public square in Bioethics for over four decades. I describe a helix metaphor for understanding the evolution of values and the current “culture wars” between “progressive” and “conservative” values adherents, the uncertainty people’s “mixed values packages” engender, and disagreement in prioritizing individual rights and the “common good”. I propose, as a way forward, that individual and collective experiences of “amazement, wonder and awe” have the power to enrich our lives, help us to find meaning and sometimes to bridge the secular/religious divide and experience a shared moral universe. They can change our worldview, our decisions regarding values and ethics, and whether we live our lives mainly as just an individual – a “me” – or also as a member of a larger community – a “We”. I summarize in an equation – “The Wonder Equation” – what is necessary to reduce or resolve some current hostile values conflicts in order to facilitate such a transition. It will require revisiting and reaffirming the traditional values we still need as both individuals and societies and accommodating them with certain contemporary “progressive" values.

Here are some thoughts:

This article is a personal reflection on her decades of work in bioethics and a proposal for a novel approach to navigating contemporary ethical conflicts. Central to her argument is the idea that cultivating experiences of amazement, wonder, and awe (AWA)—especially when paired with healthy skepticism and free from cynicism and nihilism—can lead to deep gratitude and hope, which in turn inspire individuals and communities to act more ethically. She expresses this as a formula: AWA + S – (C + N) → G + H → E, which she calls “The Wonder Equation.” This equation suggests that rather than relying solely on rational analysis or ideological arguments, engaging our emotional and spiritual capacities can help restore a shared sense of moral responsibility.

For psychologists, Somerville’s work holds particular importance. First, it introduces a fresh lens for understanding moral motivation. Drawing on both personal anecdotes and recent empirical research, she argues that emotional states like awe and wonder are not only enriching but are also linked to prosocial behaviors such as compassion, empathy, and a sense of connectedness. This aligns with psychological studies that show how awe can reduce narcissism, increase well-being, and promote community-oriented values. Second, Somerville’s analysis of today’s “culture wars”—and her critique of rigid ideological divisions between “progressive” and conservative values—offers psychologists insight into how clients might experience internal value conflicts in an increasingly polarized world. Her concept of “mixed values packages” underscores the psychological reality that most people hold complex, sometimes contradictory beliefs, which calls for greater tolerance and openness in both therapy and society at large.

Whistle-blowers – morally courageous actors in health care?

Wiisak, J., Suhonen, R., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2022).

Nursing Ethics, 29(6), 1415–1429.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330221092341

Abstract

Background

Moral courage means courage to act according to individual’s own ethical values and principles despite the risk of negative consequences for them. Research about the moral courage of whistle-blowers in health care is scarce, although whistleblowing involves a significant risk for the whistle-blower.

Objective

To analyse the moral courage of potential whistle-blowers and its association with their background variables in health care.

Research design

Was a descriptive-correlational study using a questionnaire, containing Nurses Moral Courage Scale©, a video vignette of the wrongdoing situation with an open question about the vignette, and several background variables. Data were analysed statistically and inductive content analysis was used for the narratives.

Participants and research context

Nurses as healthcare professionals (including registered nurses, public health nurses, midwives, and nurse paramedics) were recruited from the membership register of the Nurses’ Association via email in 2019. A total of 454 nurses responded. The research context was simulated using a vignette.

Ethical considerations

Good scientific inquiry guidelines were followed. Permission to use the Nurses’ Moral Courage Scale© was obtained from the copyright holder. The ethical approval and permission to conduct the study were obtained from the participating university and the Nurses’ Association.

Findings

The mean value of potential whistle-blowers’ moral courage on a Visual Analogue Scale (0–10) was 8.55 and the mean score was 4.34 on a 5-point Likert scale. Potential whistle-blowers’ moral courage was associated with their socio-demographics, education, work, personality and social responsibility related background variables.

Discussion and conclusion

In health care, potential whistle-blowers seem to be quite morally courageous actors. The results offer opportunities for developing interventions, practices and education to support and encourage healthcare professionals in their whistleblowing. Research is needed for developing a theoretical construction to eventually increase whistleblowing and decrease and prevent wrongdoing.

Here are some thoughts:

This study investigates the moral courage of healthcare professionals in whistleblowing scenarios. Utilizing a descriptive-correlational design, the researchers surveyed 454 nurses—including registered nurses, public health nurses, midwives, and nurse paramedics—using the Nurses' Moral Courage Scale, a video vignette depicting a wrongdoing situation, and open-ended questions. Findings revealed a high level of moral courage among participants, with an average score of 8.55 on a 0–10 Visual Analogue Scale and 4.34 on a 5-point Likert scale. The study identified associations between moral courage and various background factors such as socio-demographics, education, work experience, personality traits, and social responsibility. The authors suggest that these insights can inform the development of interventions and educational programs to support and encourage whistleblowing in healthcare settings, ultimately aiming to reduce and prevent unethical practices

Learning information ethical decision making with a simulation game.

Lin, W., Wang, J., & Yueh, H. (2022).

Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.933298

Abstract

Taking advantage of the nature of games to deal with conflicting desires through contextual practices, this study illustrated the formal process of designing a situated serious game to facilitate learning of information ethics, a subject that heavily involves decision making, dilemmas, and conflicts between personal, institutional, and social desires. A simulation game with four mission scenarios covering critical issues of privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility was developed as a situated, authentic and autonomous learning environment. The player-learners were 40 college students majoring in information science and computer science as pre-service informaticists. In this study, they played the game and their game experiences and decision-making processes were recorded and analyzed. The results suggested that the participants’ knowledge of information ethics was significantly improved after playing the serious game. From the qualitative analysis of their behavioral features, including paths, time spans, and access to different materials, the results supported that the game designed in this study was helpful in improving participants’ understanding, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information ethics issues, as well as their judgments. These findings have implications for developing curricula and instructions in information ethics education.

Here are some thoughts:

The article presents a compelling case for the use of simulation-based serious games as a teaching tool for ethical decision-making, specifically in the context of information ethics. The game was designed around four core ethical concerns—privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility—which are frequently encountered in information and technological contexts. These issues closely mirror ethical dilemmas psychologists face, particularly regarding confidentiality, informed consent, data handling, and equitable access to services.

For psychologists, especially those engaged in clinical practice, research, or supervisory roles, the implications are significant. First, the study underscores the importance of situated learning—learning that occurs in context—which aligns with the ethical challenges clinicians often encounter in dynamic, real-world settings. Second, the use of simulation allows for autonomous and reflective learning, reinforcing critical thinking, ethical analysis, and decision-making in morally ambiguous situations. The framework applied in the game—the General Theory of Marketing Ethics (GTME)—can be generalized to support ethical reasoning in any professional field, including psychology, by integrating deontological (duty-based) and teleological (consequence-based) approaches, along with rights-based and virtue-based perspectives.

The study also demonstrated a significant improvement in ethical reasoning after gameplay, indicating that such interactive methods could enhance continuing education efforts or be adapted to ethics training in graduate psychology programs. The inclusion of stakeholder perspectives and the visualization of consequences provided a practical way for learners to grasp how decisions affect others—key to ethical competence in psychology.

Lastly, the findings suggest that relying solely on codes of ethics may be insufficient; immersive, experiential training that helps translate abstract principles into practice is critical. This insight is highly relevant to psychologists aiming to foster ethical climates in organizational settings or who supervise early career professionals.

How do clinical psychologists make ethical decisions? A systematic review of empirical research

Grace, B., Wainwright, T., et al. (2020). 

Clinical Ethics, 15(4), 213–224.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1477750920927165

Abstract

Given the nature of the discipline, it might be assumed that clinical psychology is an ethical profession, within which effective ethical decision-making is integral. How then, does this ethical decision-making occur? This paper describes a systematic review of empirical research addressing this question. The paucity of evidence related to this question meant that the scope was broadened to include other professions who deliver talking therapies. This review could support reflective practice about what may be taken into account when making ethical decisions and highlight areas for future research. Using academic search databases, original research articles were identified from peer-reviewed journals. Articles using qualitative (n = 3), quantitative (n = 8) and mixed methods (n = 2) were included. Two theoretical models of aspects of ethical decision-making were identified. Areas of agreement and debate are described in relation to factors linked to the professional, which impacted ethical decision-making. Factors relating to ethical dilemmas, which impacted ethical decision-making, are discussed. Articles were appraised by two independent raters, using quality assessment criteria, which suggested areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses. Comparison and synthesis of results revealed that the research did not generally pertain to current clinical practice of talking therapies or the particular socio-political context of the UK healthcare system. There was limited research into ethical decision-making amongst specific professions, including clinical psychology. Generalisability was limited due to methodological issues, indicating avenues for future research.

Here are some thoughts:

This article is a systematic review of empirical research on how clinical psychologists and related professionals make ethical decisions. The review addresses the question of how professionals who deliver psychotherapy make ethical decisions related to their work. The authors searched academic databases for original research articles from peer-reviewed journals and included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. The review identified two theoretical models of ethical decision-making and discussed factors related to the professional and ethical dilemmas that impact decision-making. The authors found that the research did not generally pertain to current clinical practice or the socio-political context of the UK healthcare system and that there was limited research into ethical decision-making among specific professions, including clinical psychology. The authors suggest that there is a need for further up-to-date, profession-specific, mixed-methods research in this area.

How is clinical ethics reasoning done in practice? A review of the empirical literature

Feldman, S., Gillam, L., McDougall, R. J., 

& Delany, C. (2025).

Journal of Medical Ethics, jme-110569. 

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110569

Abstract

Background Clinical ethics reasoning is one of the unique contributions of clinical ethicists to healthcare, and is common to all models of clinical ethics support and methods of case analysis. Despite being a fundamental aspect of clinical ethics practice, the phenomenon of clinical ethics reasoning is not well understood. There are no formal definitions or models of clinical ethics reasoning, and it is unclear whether there is a shared understanding of this phenomenon among those who perform and encounter it.

Methods A scoping review of empirical literature was conducted across four databases in July 2024 to capture papers that shed light on how clinical ethicists undertake or facilitate clinical ethics reasoning in practice in individual patient cases. The review process was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley framework for scoping reviews.

Results 16 publications were included in this review. These publications reveal four thinking strategies used to advance ethical thinking, and three strategies for resolving clinical ethics challenges in individual patient cases. The literature also highlights a number of other influences on clinical ethics reasoning in practice.

Conclusion While this review has allowed us to start sketching the outlines of an account of clinical ethics reasoning in practice, the body of relevant literature is limited in quantity and in specificity. Further work is needed to better understand and evaluate the complex phenomenon of clinical ethics reasoning as it is done in clinical ethics practice.

The article is, unfortunately, paywalled. Follow the link above and contact the main author.

Here are some thoughts:

This scoping review examined how clinical ethicists undertake or facilitate clinical ethics reasoning in practice, focusing on individual patient cases.  The review identified four thinking strategies used to advance ethical thinking: consideration of ethical values, principles, and concepts; consideration of empirical evidence; imaginative identification; and risk/benefit analyses.  Three strategies for resolving clinical ethics challenges were also identified: time-limited trial, integrating patient values and clinical information, and perspective gathering.  Other factors influencing clinical ethics reasoning included intuition, emotion, power imbalances, and the professional background of the ethicist.  The authors highlight that the literature on clinical ethics reasoning is limited and further research is needed to fully understand this complex phenomenon.

The Ethical Implications of Illusionism

Frankish, K.

Neuroethics 17, 28 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09562-5

Abstract

Illusionism is a revisionary view of consciousness, which denies the existence of the phenomenal properties traditionally thought to render experience conscious. The view has theoretical attractions, but some think it also has objectionable ethical implications. They take illusionists to be denying the existence of consciousness itself, or at least of the thing that gives consciousness its ethical value, and thus as undermining our established ethical attitudes. This article responds to this objection. I argue that, properly understood, illusionism neither denies the existence of consciousness nor entails that consciousness does not ground ethical value. It merely offers a different account of what consciousness is and why it grounds ethical value. The article goes on to argue that the theoretical revision proposed by illusionists does have some indirect implications for our ethical attitudes but that these are wholly attractive and progressive ones. The illusionist perspective on consciousness promises to make ethical decision making easier and to extend the scope of our ethical concern. Illusionism is good news.

The article is free, and linked above.

Here are some important points:

The illusionist perspective argues that our conscious experiences and choices are not the result of free will, but rather the product of unconscious neural processes and external factors beyond our control. This view suggests that we should shift our focus from solely blaming individuals for their actions to considering the external factors (e.g., social structures, environmental influences) that shape behavior. Ethicists must reevaluate the concept of individual responsibility and moral condemnation, as people's choices and actions may not be entirely their own. Instead, a more nuanced and empathetic approach that acknowledges the complex interplay of forces influencing human behavior is necessary for ethical decision-making.

Moreover, the illusionist perspective has the potential to expand the scope of our ethical concern. If conscious experiences are not real in the way we typically assume, then the boundaries of moral consideration may need to be extended beyond just conscious beings. This could have significant implications for ethical debates surrounding the treatment of non-human animals, artificial intelligence, and even the environment. Ethicists must grapple with these profound questions as our understanding of consciousness evolves.

Why a Virtual Assistant for Moral Enhancement When We Could have a Socrates?

Lara, F. 

Sci Eng Ethics 27, 42 (2021). 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00318-5

Abstract

Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) be more effective than human instruction for the moral enhancement of people? The author argues that it only would be if the use of this technology were aimed at increasing the individual's capacity to reflectively decide for themselves, rather than at directly influencing behaviour. To support this, it is shown how a disregard for personal autonomy, in particular, invalidates the main proposals for applying new technologies, both biomedical and AI-based, to moral enhancement. As an alternative to these proposals, this article proposes a virtual assistant that, through dialogue, neutrality and virtual reality technologies, can teach users to make better moral decisions on their own. The author concludes that, as long as certain precautions are taken in its design, such an assistant could do this better than a human instructor adopting the same educational methodology.

From the Conclusion

The key in moral education is that it be pursued while respecting and promoting personal autonomy. Educators should avoid the mistake of limiting the capacities of individuals to freely and reflectively determine their own values by attempting to enhance their behaviour directly. On the contrary, they must do what they can to ensure that those being educated, at least at an advanced age, actively participate in this process in order to assume the values that will define them and give meaning to their lives. The problem with current proposals for moral enhancement through new technologies is that they treat the subject of their interventions as a "passive recipient". Moral bioenhancement does so because it aims to change the motivation of the individual by bypassing the reflection and gradual assimilation of values that should accompany any adoption of new identity traits. This constitutes a passivity that would also occur in proposals for moral AIenhancement based on ethical machines that either replace humans in decision-making, or surreptitiously direct them to do the right thing, or simply advise them based on their own supposedly undisputed values.

The info is here.

How to be a more ethical Amazon shopper during the pandemic

Samantha Murphy Kelly
CNN.org
Updated on 13 April 20

Here is an excerpt:

For customers who may feel uneasy about these workplace issues but are desperate for household goods, there are a range of options to shop more consciously, from avoiding unnecessary purchases on the platform and tipping Amazon's grocery delivery workers handsomely to buying more from local stores online. But there are conflicting views on whether the best way to be an ethical shopper at this moment means not shopping from Amazon at all, especially given its position as one of the biggest hirers during a severe labor market crunch.

"If people choose to work at Amazon, we should respect their decisions," said Peter Singer, an ethics professor at Princeton University and author of "The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically."

The US Department of Labor announced Thursday that about 6.6 million people filed for unemployment benefits in the last week alone, bringing the number of lost jobs during the pandemic to nearly 17 million. Singer highlighted how delivery services are one of the few areas in which businesses are hiring.

But Christian Smalls, the former Amazon employee who partially organized a protest calling for senior warehouse officials to close the Staten Island, New York, facility for deep cleaning after multiple cases of the virus emerged there, advises otherwise. (The company later fired Smalls, citing he did not stay in quarantine after exposure to someone who tested positive.)

"If you want to practice real social distancing, stop pressing the buy button," Smalls told CNN Business. "You'll be saving lives. I understand that people need groceries and certain items, depending where you live, are limited. But people are buying things they don't need and it's putting workers' health at risk."

Although the issue is complex, shoppers who decide to continue using Amazon, or any online delivery platform, can keep a few best practices in mind.

The info is here.

The Ethical Dilemma at the Heart of Big Tech Companies

Emanuel Moss and Jacob Metcalf
Harvard Business Review
Originally posted 14 Nov 19

Here is an excerpt:

The central challenge ethics owners are grappling with is negotiating between external pressures to respond to ethical crises at the same time that they must be responsive to the internal logics of their companies and the industry. On the one hand, external criticisms push them toward challenging core business practices and priorities. On the other hand, the logics of Silicon Valley, and of business more generally, create pressures to establish or restore predictable processes and outcomes that still serve the bottom line.

We identified three distinct logics that characterize this tension between internal and external pressures:

Meritocracy: Although originally coined as a derisive term in satirical science fiction by British sociologist Michael Young, meritocracy infuses everything in Silicon Valley from hiring practices to policy positions, and retroactively justifies the industry’s power in our lives. As such, ethics is often framed with an eye toward smarter, better, and faster approaches, as if the problems of the tech industry can be addressed through those virtues. Given this, it is not surprising that many within the tech industry position themselves as the actors best suited to address ethical challenges, rather than less technically-inclined stakeholders, including elected officials and advocacy groups. In our interviews, this manifested in relying on engineers to use their personal judgement by “grappling with the hard questions on the ground,” trusting them to discern and to evaluate the ethical stakes of their own products. While there are some rigorous procedures that help designers scan for the consequences of their products, sitting in a room and “thinking hard” about the potential harms of a product in the real world is not the same as thoroughly understanding how someone (whose life is very different than a software engineer) might be affected by things like predictive policing or facial recognition technology, as obvious examples. Ethics owners find themselves being pulled between technical staff that assert generalized competence over many domains and their own knowledge that ethics is a specialized domain that requires deep contextual understanding.

The info is here.

Ethics a distant second to profits in Silicon Valley

Gabriel Fairman
www.sdtimes.com
Originally published September 9, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

For ethics to become a part of the value system that drives behavior in Silicon Valley, it would have to be incentivized as such. I have a hard time envisioning a world were ethics can offer shareholders huge returns. Ethics is about doing the right thing, and the right thing and the lucrative thing typically don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Everyone can understand ethics. Basic questions such as “Will this be good for the world in a year, 10 years or 20 years?”, “Would I want this for my kids?” are easy litmus tests to differentiate between ethical and unethical conduct. The challenge is that considerations on ethics slow down development by raising challenges and concerns early on.  Ethics are about amplifying potential problems that can be foreseen down the road.

On the other hand, venture-funded start-ups are about minimizing the ramifications of these problems as they move on quickly. How can ethics compete with billion-dollar exits? It can’t. Ethics are just this thing that we read about in articles or hear about in lectures. It is not driving day-to-day decision-making. You listen to people in boardrooms asking, “How will this impact our valuation?,” or “What is the ROI of this initiative?” but you don’t hear top-level execs brainstorming about how their product or company could be more ethical because there is no compensation tied to that. The way we have built our world, ethics are just fluff.

We are also extraordinary at differentiating private vs. public lives. Many people working at tech companies don’t allow their kids to use electronic devices ubiquitously or would not want their kids bossed around by an algorithm as they let go of full-time employee benefits. But they promote these things and further them because these things are highly profitable, not because they are fundamentally good. This key distinction between private and public behavior allows people to behave in wildly hypocritical ways, by helping advance the very things they do not want in their own homes.

The info is here.

Moral dilemmas in (not) treating patients who feel they are a burden

Metselaar S, Widdershoven G.
[published online April 23, 2019]
Bioethics. 2019;33(4):431-438.

Abstract

Working as clinical ethicists in an academic hospital, we find that practitioners tend to take a principle‐based approach to moral dilemmas when it comes to (not) treating patients who feel like a burden, in which respect for autonomy tends to trump other principles. We argue that this approach insufficiently deals with the moral doubts of professionals with regard to feeling that you are a burden as a motive to decline or withdraw from treatment. Neither does it take into adequately account the specific needs of the patient that might underlie their feeling of being a burden to others. We propose a care ethics approach as an alternative. It focuses on being attentive and responsive to the caring needs of those involved in the care process—which can be much more specific than either receiving or withdrawing from treatment. This approach considers these needs in the context of the patient's identity, biography and relationships, and regards autonomy as relational rather than as individual. We illustrate the difference between these two approaches by means of the case of Mrs K. Furthermore, we show that a care ethics approach is in line with interventions that are found to alleviate feeling a burden and maintain that facilitating moral case deliberation among practitioners can supports them in taking a care ethics approach to moral dilemmas in (not) treating patients who feel like a burden.

The info is here.

'Ethics Bots' and Other Ways to Move Your Code of Business Conduct Beyond Puffery

Michael Blanding
Harvard Business Week
Originally posted May 14, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

Even if not ready to develop or deploy such technologically advanced solutions, companies can still make their ethics codes more intuitive, interactive, and practical for day-to-day decision-making, Soltes says. That may mean reducing the number of broad-brush value statements and uninspired clip-art, instead making the document more concise in describing practical guidelines for the company’s employees.

He also recommends thinking beyond the legal department to bring in other areas of the company, such as marketing, communications, or consumer behavior specialists, to help design a code that will be understandable to employees. Uber, for example, rolled out a mobile app-focused version of its ethics code to better serve its employees, who are younger and more tech savvy.

Lastly, Soltes advises that firms not be afraid to experiment. An ethics code shouldn’t be a monolith, but rather a living document that can be adapted to the expanding needs of a firm and its employees. After rolling out a policy to a subgroup of employees, for example, companies should evaluate how the code is actually being used in practice and how it can be further refined and improved.

That kind of creativity can help companies stay away from the scrutiny of regulators and avoid negative headlines. “Ultimately, the goal should not simply be to just create a legal document, but instead a valuable tool that helps cultivate the kind of behavior and culture the firm wants to support on a day-to-day basis,” Soltes says.

The info is here.

Students' Ethical Decision‐Making When Considering Boundary Crossings With Counselor Educators

Stephanie T. Burns
Counseling and Values
First published: 10 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1002/cvj.12094

Abstract

Counselor education students (N = 224) rated 16 boundary‐crossing scenarios involving counselor educators. They viewed boundary crossings as unethical and were aware of power differentials between the 2 groups. Next, they rated the scenarios again, after reviewing 1 of 4 ethical informational resources: relevant standards in the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014), 2 different boundary‐crossing decision‐making models, and a placebo. Although participants rated all resources except the placebo as moderately helpful, these resources had little to no influence on their ethical decision‐making. Only 47% of students in the 2 ethical decision‐making model groups reported they would use the model they were exposed to in the future when contemplating boundary crossings.

Here is a portion from Implications for Practice and Training

Counselor education students took conservative stances toward the 16 boundary-crossing scenarios with counselor educators. These findings support results of previous researchers who stated that students struggle with even the smallest of boundary crossings (Kozlowski et al., 2014) because they understand that power differentials have implications for grades, evaluations, recommendation letters, and obtaining authentic skill development feedback (Gu et al., 2011). Counselor educators need to be aware that students find not providing appropriate feedback because of the counselor educator’s personal feelings toward the student, not providing students with required supervision time in practicum, and taking first authorship when the student performed all the work on the submission as being as abusive as having sex with a student.

The research is here.

A philosopher’s life

Margaret Nagle
UMaineToday
Fall/Winter 2018

Here is an excerpt:

Mention philosophy and for most people, images of the bearded philosophers of Ancient Greece pontificating in the marketplace come to mind. Today, philosophers are still in public arenas, Miller says, but now that engagement with society is in K–12 education, medicine, government, corporations, environmental issues and so much more. Public philosophers are students of community knowledge, learning as much as they teach.

The field of clinical ethics, which helps patients, families and clinicians address ethical issues that arise in health care, emerged in recent decades as medical decisions became more complex in an increasingly technological society. Those questions can range from when to stop aggressive medical intervention to whether expressed breast milk from a patient who uses medical marijuana should be given to her baby in the neonatal intensive care unit.

As a clinical ethicist, Miller provides training and consultation for physicians, nurses and other medical personnel. She also may be called on to consult with patients and their family members. Unlike urban areas where a city hospital may have a whole department devoted to clinical ethics, rural health care settings often struggle to find such philosophy-focused resources.

That’s why Miller does what she does in Maine.

Miller focuses on “building clinical ethics capacity” in the state’s rural health care settings, providing training, connecting hospital personnel to readings and resources, and facilitating opportunities to maintain ongoing exploration of critical issues.

The article is here.

Leaders matter morally: The role of ethical leadership in shaping employee moral cognition and misconduct.

Moore, C., Mayer, D. M., Chiang, F. F. T., Crossley, C., Karlesky, M. J., & Birtch, T. A. (2019). Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 123-145.

Abstract

There has long been interest in how leaders influence the unethical behavior of those who they lead. However, research in this area has tended to focus on leaders’ direct influence over subordinate behavior, such as through role modeling or eliciting positive social exchange. We extend this research by examining how ethical leaders affect how employees construe morally problematic decisions, ultimately influencing their behavior. Across four studies, diverse in methods (lab and field) and national context (the United States and China), we find that ethical leadership decreases employees’ propensity to morally disengage, with ultimate effects on employees’ unethical decisions and deviant behavior. Further, employee moral identity moderates this mediated effect. However, the form of this moderation is not consistent. In Studies 2 and 4, we find that ethical leaders have the largest positive influence over individuals with a weak moral identity (providing a “saving grace”), whereas in Study 3, we find that ethical leaders have the largest positive influence over individuals with a strong moral identity (catalyzing a “virtuous synergy”). We use these findings to speculate about when ethical leaders might function as a “saving grace” versus a “virtuous synergy.” Together, our results suggest that employee misconduct stems from a complex interaction between employees, their leaders, and the context in which this relationship takes place, specifically via leaders’ influence over employees’ moral cognition.

Here is the Conclusion:

Our research points to one of the reasons why 'cleaning house' of morally compromised leaders after scandals may be less effective than we might expect. The fact that leadership affects the extent to which subordinates morally disengage means that their influence may be more profound and nefarious than one might conclude given earlier understandings of the mechanisms through which ethical leadership elicits its outcomes. One can eliminate perverse incentives and remove poor role models, but once a leader shifts how subordinates cognitively construe decisions with ethical import, their continuing influence on employee misconduct may be harder to undo.

The info is here.