by John D. Lantos
Bioethics.net
Originally published July 13, 2016
Pullman and Hodgkinson present a case that, it seems, should have been an easy one. A competent adult makes a simple request to discontinue a medical therapy. Further, it was a therapy that he’d already tried so personal experience informed his preference to discontinue therapy. His request was repeated over time. He was determined to have adequate decisional capacity. So why did both the physicians and the bioethicists consider this to be a difficult case?
There are certain cases that lead to such dilemmas. They are cases in which emotions tug us in one direction and reason tugs in another. The best example of this type of situation is the difference between withholding a treatment and withdrawing the same treatment. Bioethical principles suggest that these two actions are ethically equivalent. Legal precedent shows that the law treats them as comparable actions. Yet both health professionals and families say that the two actions feel very different. Another example is the difference between withdrawing life-support in a patient who is awake and alert compared to withdrawing life-support in a patient who is unconscious. If the diagnosis and prognosis are the same, then the fact of consciousness does not change the legality or morality of the action. But they feel very different.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Ethical Decision-making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethical Decision-making. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Friday, July 1, 2016
Predicting Suicide is not Reliable, according to recent study
Matthew Large , M. Kaneson, N. Myles, H. Myles, P. Gunaratne, C. Ryan
PLOS One
Published: June 10, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156322
Discussion
The pooled estimate from a large and representative body of research conducted over 40 years suggests a statistically strong association between high-risk strata and completed suicide. However the meta-analysis of the sensitivity of suicide risk categorization found that about half of all suicides are likely to occur in lower-risk groups and the meta-analysis of PPV suggests that 95% of high-risk patients will not suicide. Importantly, the pooled odds ratio (and the estimates of the sensitivity and PPV) and any assessment of the overall strength of risk assessment should be interpreted very cautiously in the context of several limitations documented below.
With respect to our first hypothesis, the statistical estimates of between study heterogeneity and the distribution of the outlying, quartile and median effect sizes values suggests that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment cannot be considered to be consistent between studies, potentially limiting the generalizability of the pooled estimate.
With respect to our second hypothesis we found no evidence that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment has improved over time.
The research is here.
PLOS One
Published: June 10, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156322
Discussion
The pooled estimate from a large and representative body of research conducted over 40 years suggests a statistically strong association between high-risk strata and completed suicide. However the meta-analysis of the sensitivity of suicide risk categorization found that about half of all suicides are likely to occur in lower-risk groups and the meta-analysis of PPV suggests that 95% of high-risk patients will not suicide. Importantly, the pooled odds ratio (and the estimates of the sensitivity and PPV) and any assessment of the overall strength of risk assessment should be interpreted very cautiously in the context of several limitations documented below.
With respect to our first hypothesis, the statistical estimates of between study heterogeneity and the distribution of the outlying, quartile and median effect sizes values suggests that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment cannot be considered to be consistent between studies, potentially limiting the generalizability of the pooled estimate.
With respect to our second hypothesis we found no evidence that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment has improved over time.
The research is here.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The Triggers We Don't Notice
By Lisa Ordóñez & David Welsh
Notre Dame Center for Ethical Leadership
Posted in 2016
Many companies’ ethics trainings focus on building frameworks and decision trees as tools for their employees to use in making ethically sound decisions. The assumption is that when these employees are confronted with morally ambiguous situations, the tools will allow them to reason their way through them and figure out the best option.
Based on innovative behavioral research, we now know that it’s not that simple. There are a lot of factors that go into determining whether a decision is ethical or unethical. People need to have the energy and resources to resist the temptation to be immoral. They need to feel like the choice matters and that their behavior will actually make a difference. Perhaps most importantly, people need to frame the situation as an ethical question. It’s not just about the tools to make the right decision when you know it’s a hard one. Employees need to flip on their “ethical switch” if they are going to recognize that there is an ethical question at hand.
The article is here.
Notre Dame Center for Ethical Leadership
Posted in 2016
Many companies’ ethics trainings focus on building frameworks and decision trees as tools for their employees to use in making ethically sound decisions. The assumption is that when these employees are confronted with morally ambiguous situations, the tools will allow them to reason their way through them and figure out the best option.
Based on innovative behavioral research, we now know that it’s not that simple. There are a lot of factors that go into determining whether a decision is ethical or unethical. People need to have the energy and resources to resist the temptation to be immoral. They need to feel like the choice matters and that their behavior will actually make a difference. Perhaps most importantly, people need to frame the situation as an ethical question. It’s not just about the tools to make the right decision when you know it’s a hard one. Employees need to flip on their “ethical switch” if they are going to recognize that there is an ethical question at hand.
The article is here.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Vignette 34: A Dreadful Voicemail
Dr. Vanessa Ives works in a solo private practice. She has been working with Mr. Dorian Gray for several months for signs and symptoms of depression. Mr. Gray comes to some sessions as emotionally intense, and high strung. Dr. Ives has considered the possibility that Mr. Gray suffers with some type of cyclic mood disorder.
As part of treatment, Mr. Gray admitted to experiencing anger management problems, to the point where he described physically intimidating his wife and pushing her down. They worked on anger management skills. Mr. Gray reported progress in this area.
Dr. Ives receives a phone message from Mr. Gray’s wife. In the voicemail, Mrs. Gray reports that Mr. Gray has become more physically intimidating and has starting to push her around. The voicemail indicated he has not caused her any significant harm. She requested a session to see Dr. Ives to explain what is happening between them. Dr. Ives only met Mrs. Gray informally while she sat in the waiting room before and after several sessions.
Dr. Ives wants to be helpful, but she is struggling with whether she should even return Mrs. Gray’s phone call. Dr. Ives has a personal history of being involved in a physically abusive relationship herself and is concerned about both the clinical and ethical issues involved regarding calling Mrs. Gray back.
Feeling uncomfortable about what is happening with this patient and his wife, Dr. Ives calls you for a professional consultation. She wants to make an appointment to talk with you candidly about her history as well as the dynamics of the current case.
What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
What are the pertinent clinical issues in this case?
How would you help Dr. Ives deal with her emotions related to this situation, given how her history relates to this patient and his wife?
Would you recommend Dr. Ives return the call or not?
What are some possible options should Dr. Ives return the phone call?
How much transparency would you suggest to Dr. Ives with Mr. Gray about the phone message?
As part of treatment, Mr. Gray admitted to experiencing anger management problems, to the point where he described physically intimidating his wife and pushing her down. They worked on anger management skills. Mr. Gray reported progress in this area.
Dr. Ives receives a phone message from Mr. Gray’s wife. In the voicemail, Mrs. Gray reports that Mr. Gray has become more physically intimidating and has starting to push her around. The voicemail indicated he has not caused her any significant harm. She requested a session to see Dr. Ives to explain what is happening between them. Dr. Ives only met Mrs. Gray informally while she sat in the waiting room before and after several sessions.
Dr. Ives wants to be helpful, but she is struggling with whether she should even return Mrs. Gray’s phone call. Dr. Ives has a personal history of being involved in a physically abusive relationship herself and is concerned about both the clinical and ethical issues involved regarding calling Mrs. Gray back.
Feeling uncomfortable about what is happening with this patient and his wife, Dr. Ives calls you for a professional consultation. She wants to make an appointment to talk with you candidly about her history as well as the dynamics of the current case.
What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
What are the pertinent clinical issues in this case?
How would you help Dr. Ives deal with her emotions related to this situation, given how her history relates to this patient and his wife?
Would you recommend Dr. Ives return the call or not?
What are some possible options should Dr. Ives return the phone call?
How much transparency would you suggest to Dr. Ives with Mr. Gray about the phone message?
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Does Bioethics Tell Us What to Do?
by J.S. Blumenthal-Barby, Ph.D.
bioethics.net
Originally posted February 15, 2016
Applied ethicists—including bioethicists—are in the business of making normative claims. Unlike, say, claims in meta-ethics, these are meant to guide action. Yet, when one examines the literature and discourse in applied ethics, there are three common barriers to these claims being action-guiding. First, they often lack precision and accuracy when examined under the lens of deontic logic. Second, even when accurately articulated in deontic language, they often fall into the category of claims about “permissibility,” a category that yields low utility with respect to action guidance. Third, they are often spectrum based rather than binary normative claims, which also yield low utility with respect to action guidance.
The blog post is here.
bioethics.net
Originally posted February 15, 2016
Applied ethicists—including bioethicists—are in the business of making normative claims. Unlike, say, claims in meta-ethics, these are meant to guide action. Yet, when one examines the literature and discourse in applied ethics, there are three common barriers to these claims being action-guiding. First, they often lack precision and accuracy when examined under the lens of deontic logic. Second, even when accurately articulated in deontic language, they often fall into the category of claims about “permissibility,” a category that yields low utility with respect to action guidance. Third, they are often spectrum based rather than binary normative claims, which also yield low utility with respect to action guidance.
The blog post is here.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Moral Cleansing
Colin West and Chen-Bo Zhong
Current Opinion in Psychology
Available online 3 November 2015
Moral cleansing describes behaviors aimed at restoring moral self-worth in response to past transgressions. People are motivated to maintain a moral self-image and to eliminate apparent gaps between their perceived self-image and their desired moral self. Moral cleansing behaviors fall into three over-arching categories. Restitution cleansing behaviors directly resolve past misdeeds. Behavioral cleansing involves counter-balancing across multiple dimensions of the moral self whereby threats in one sub-domain are alleviated by bolstering a separate sub-domain. Symbolic cleansing includes restitution behaviors that are only symbolically connected to the provoking moral threat, such as physical or ritual cleansing. The moral cleansing literature seeks to understand these seemingly erratic sequences of compensatory behaviors.
“Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.” -Oscar Wilde
Highlights
• We review the literature on the psychology of moral cleansing.
• There are three categories: restitution, behavioral, and symbolic cleansing.
• The psychological mechanism is based on a malleable moral self-image.
• Moral cleansing examines the implications of sequential ethical decision-making.
The entire article is here.
Current Opinion in Psychology
Available online 3 November 2015
Moral cleansing describes behaviors aimed at restoring moral self-worth in response to past transgressions. People are motivated to maintain a moral self-image and to eliminate apparent gaps between their perceived self-image and their desired moral self. Moral cleansing behaviors fall into three over-arching categories. Restitution cleansing behaviors directly resolve past misdeeds. Behavioral cleansing involves counter-balancing across multiple dimensions of the moral self whereby threats in one sub-domain are alleviated by bolstering a separate sub-domain. Symbolic cleansing includes restitution behaviors that are only symbolically connected to the provoking moral threat, such as physical or ritual cleansing. The moral cleansing literature seeks to understand these seemingly erratic sequences of compensatory behaviors.
“Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.” -Oscar Wilde
Highlights
• We review the literature on the psychology of moral cleansing.
• There are three categories: restitution, behavioral, and symbolic cleansing.
• The psychological mechanism is based on a malleable moral self-image.
• Moral cleansing examines the implications of sequential ethical decision-making.
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Machine ethics: The robot’s dilemma
Working out how to build ethical robots is one of the thorniest challenges in artificial intelligence.
By Boer Deng
Nature
01 July 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Advocates argue that the rule-based approach has one major virtue: it is always clear why the machine makes the choice that it does, because its designers set the rules. That is a crucial concern for the US military, for which autonomous systems are a key strategic goal. Whether machines assist soldiers or carry out potentially lethal missions, “the last thing you want is to send an autonomous robot on a military mission and have it work out what ethical rules it should follow in the middle of things”, says Ronald Arkin, who works on robot ethics software at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. If a robot had the choice of saving a soldier or going after an enemy combatant, it would be important to know in advance what it would do.
With support from the US defence department, Arkin is designing a program to ensure that a military robot would operate according to international laws of engagement. A set of algorithms called an ethical governor computes whether an action such as shooting a missile is permissible, and allows it to proceed only if the answer is 'yes'.
In a virtual test of the ethical governor, a simulation of an unmanned autonomous vehicle was given a mission to strike enemy targets — but was not allowed to do so if there were buildings with civilians nearby. Given scenarios that varied the location of the vehicle relative to an attack zone and civilian complexes such as hospitals and residential buildings, the algorithms decided when it would be permissible for the autonomous vehicle to accomplish its mission.
The entire article is here.
By Boer Deng
Nature
01 July 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Advocates argue that the rule-based approach has one major virtue: it is always clear why the machine makes the choice that it does, because its designers set the rules. That is a crucial concern for the US military, for which autonomous systems are a key strategic goal. Whether machines assist soldiers or carry out potentially lethal missions, “the last thing you want is to send an autonomous robot on a military mission and have it work out what ethical rules it should follow in the middle of things”, says Ronald Arkin, who works on robot ethics software at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. If a robot had the choice of saving a soldier or going after an enemy combatant, it would be important to know in advance what it would do.
With support from the US defence department, Arkin is designing a program to ensure that a military robot would operate according to international laws of engagement. A set of algorithms called an ethical governor computes whether an action such as shooting a missile is permissible, and allows it to proceed only if the answer is 'yes'.
In a virtual test of the ethical governor, a simulation of an unmanned autonomous vehicle was given a mission to strike enemy targets — but was not allowed to do so if there were buildings with civilians nearby. Given scenarios that varied the location of the vehicle relative to an attack zone and civilian complexes such as hospitals and residential buildings, the algorithms decided when it would be permissible for the autonomous vehicle to accomplish its mission.
The entire article is here.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Anticipating and Resisting the Temptation to Behave Unethically
Oliver J. Sheldon and Ayelet Fishbach
Published online before print May 22, 2015
doi: 10.1177/0146167215586196
Abstract
Ethical dilemmas pose a self-control conflict between pursuing immediate benefits through behaving dishonestly and pursuing long-term benefits through acts of honesty. Therefore, factors that facilitate self-control for other types of goals (e.g., health and financial) should also promote ethical behavior. Across four studies, we find support for this possibility. Specifically, we find that only under conditions that facilitate conflict identification—including the consideration of several decisions simultaneously (i.e., a broad decision frame) and perceived high connectedness to the future self—does anticipating a temptation to behave dishonestly in advance promote honesty. We demonstrate these interaction patterns between conflict identification and temptation anticipation in negotiation situations (Study 1), lab tasks (Study 2), and ethical dilemmas in the workplace (Studies 3-4). We conclude that identifying a self-control conflict and anticipating a temptation are two necessary preconditions for ethical decision making.
The article story is here.
Published online before print May 22, 2015
doi: 10.1177/0146167215586196
Abstract
Ethical dilemmas pose a self-control conflict between pursuing immediate benefits through behaving dishonestly and pursuing long-term benefits through acts of honesty. Therefore, factors that facilitate self-control for other types of goals (e.g., health and financial) should also promote ethical behavior. Across four studies, we find support for this possibility. Specifically, we find that only under conditions that facilitate conflict identification—including the consideration of several decisions simultaneously (i.e., a broad decision frame) and perceived high connectedness to the future self—does anticipating a temptation to behave dishonestly in advance promote honesty. We demonstrate these interaction patterns between conflict identification and temptation anticipation in negotiation situations (Study 1), lab tasks (Study 2), and ethical dilemmas in the workplace (Studies 3-4). We conclude that identifying a self-control conflict and anticipating a temptation are two necessary preconditions for ethical decision making.
The article story is here.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Is Age a Determinant Variable in Forgoing Treatment Decisions at the End of Life?
Guest post by Sandra Martins Pereira, Roeline Pasman and Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen
Journal of Medical Ethics Blog
Originally posted May 14, 2015
Decisions to forgo treatment are embedded in clinical, socio-cultural, philosophical, religious, legal and ethical contexts and beliefs, and they cannot be considered as representing good or poor quality care. Particularly for older people, it is sometimes argued that treatment is aggressive, and that there may be a tendency to continue or start treatments in situations where a shift to a focus on quality of life in light of a limited life expectancy might be preferred. Others argue that an attitude of ageism might prevent older people from receiving treatments and care from which they could benefit, thus resulting in some type of harm and compromising the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.
When the need to make a decision about treatment concerns an older person at the end of life, physicians need to reflect on the following questions: In this situation, for this person, what is the best course of action? Is this person capable of assessing the situation and making a decision about it adequately herself? What are the preferences of the person? Who needs to be involved in the decision-making process? What will be the consequences of starting or withholding this treatment?
The blog post is here.
The paper is here.
Journal of Medical Ethics Blog
Originally posted May 14, 2015
Decisions to forgo treatment are embedded in clinical, socio-cultural, philosophical, religious, legal and ethical contexts and beliefs, and they cannot be considered as representing good or poor quality care. Particularly for older people, it is sometimes argued that treatment is aggressive, and that there may be a tendency to continue or start treatments in situations where a shift to a focus on quality of life in light of a limited life expectancy might be preferred. Others argue that an attitude of ageism might prevent older people from receiving treatments and care from which they could benefit, thus resulting in some type of harm and compromising the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.
When the need to make a decision about treatment concerns an older person at the end of life, physicians need to reflect on the following questions: In this situation, for this person, what is the best course of action? Is this person capable of assessing the situation and making a decision about it adequately herself? What are the preferences of the person? Who needs to be involved in the decision-making process? What will be the consequences of starting or withholding this treatment?
The blog post is here.
The paper is here.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices
By O. FeldmanHall, D. Mobbs, D. Evans, L. Hiscox, L. Navrady, & T. Dalgleish
Cognition, Volume 123, Issue 3, June 2012, Pages 434–441
Abstract
Moral ideals are strongly ingrained within society and individuals alike, but actual moral choices are profoundly influenced by tangible rewards and consequences. Across two studies we show that real moral decisions can dramatically contradict moral choices made in hypothetical scenarios (Study 1). However, by systematically enhancing the contextual information available to subjects when addressing a hypothetical moral problem—thereby reducing the opportunity for mental simulation—we were able to incrementally bring subjects’ responses in line with their moral behaviour in real situations (Study 2). These results imply that previous work relying mainly on decontextualized hypothetical scenarios may not accurately reflect moral decisions in everyday life. The findings also shed light on contextual factors that can alter how moral decisions are made, such as the salience of a personal gain.
The entire article is here.
Cognition, Volume 123, Issue 3, June 2012, Pages 434–441
Abstract
Moral ideals are strongly ingrained within society and individuals alike, but actual moral choices are profoundly influenced by tangible rewards and consequences. Across two studies we show that real moral decisions can dramatically contradict moral choices made in hypothetical scenarios (Study 1). However, by systematically enhancing the contextual information available to subjects when addressing a hypothetical moral problem—thereby reducing the opportunity for mental simulation—we were able to incrementally bring subjects’ responses in line with their moral behaviour in real situations (Study 2). These results imply that previous work relying mainly on decontextualized hypothetical scenarios may not accurately reflect moral decisions in everyday life. The findings also shed light on contextual factors that can alter how moral decisions are made, such as the salience of a personal gain.
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior
Jens Hainmueller, Dominik Hangartner, and Teppei Yamamoto
Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior
PNAS 2015 112 (8) 2395-2400; doi:10.1073/pnas.1416587112
Abstract
Survey experiments, like vignette and conjoint analyses, are widely used in the social sciences to elicit stated preferences and study how humans make multidimensional choices. However, there is a paucity of research on the external validity of these methods that examines whether the determinants that explain hypothetical choices made by survey respondents match the determinants that explain what subjects actually do when making similar choices in real-world situations. This study compares results from conjoint and vignette analyses on which immigrant attributes generate support for naturalization with closely corresponding behavioral data from a natural experiment in Switzerland, where some municipalities used referendums to decide on the citizenship applications of foreign residents. Using a representative sample from the same population and the official descriptions of applicant characteristics that voters received before each referendum as a behavioral benchmark, we find that the effects of the applicant attributes estimated from the survey experiments perform remarkably well in recovering the effects of the same attributes in the behavioral benchmark. We also find important differences in the relative performances of the different designs. Overall, the paired conjoint design, where respondents evaluate two immigrants side by side, comes closest to the behavioral benchmark; on average, its estimates are within 2% percentage points of the effects in the behavioral benchmark.
Significance
Little evidence exists on whether preferences about hypothetical choices measured in a survey experiment are driven by the same structural determinants of the actual choices made in the real world. This study answers this question using a natural experiment as a behavioral benchmark. Comparing the results from conjoint and vignette experiments on which attributes of hypothetical immigrants generate support for naturalization with the outcomes of closely corresponding referendums in Switzerland, we find that the effects estimated from the surveys match the effects of the same attributes in the behavioral benchmark remarkably well. We also find that seemingly subtle differences in survey designs can produce significant differences in performance. Overall, the paired conjoint design performs the best.
The entire article is here.
Editor's note: This research is significant when ethics educators use vignettes to help psychologists learn about their ethical decision-making process and moral beliefs.
Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior
PNAS 2015 112 (8) 2395-2400; doi:10.1073/pnas.1416587112
Abstract
Survey experiments, like vignette and conjoint analyses, are widely used in the social sciences to elicit stated preferences and study how humans make multidimensional choices. However, there is a paucity of research on the external validity of these methods that examines whether the determinants that explain hypothetical choices made by survey respondents match the determinants that explain what subjects actually do when making similar choices in real-world situations. This study compares results from conjoint and vignette analyses on which immigrant attributes generate support for naturalization with closely corresponding behavioral data from a natural experiment in Switzerland, where some municipalities used referendums to decide on the citizenship applications of foreign residents. Using a representative sample from the same population and the official descriptions of applicant characteristics that voters received before each referendum as a behavioral benchmark, we find that the effects of the applicant attributes estimated from the survey experiments perform remarkably well in recovering the effects of the same attributes in the behavioral benchmark. We also find important differences in the relative performances of the different designs. Overall, the paired conjoint design, where respondents evaluate two immigrants side by side, comes closest to the behavioral benchmark; on average, its estimates are within 2% percentage points of the effects in the behavioral benchmark.
Significance
Little evidence exists on whether preferences about hypothetical choices measured in a survey experiment are driven by the same structural determinants of the actual choices made in the real world. This study answers this question using a natural experiment as a behavioral benchmark. Comparing the results from conjoint and vignette experiments on which attributes of hypothetical immigrants generate support for naturalization with the outcomes of closely corresponding referendums in Switzerland, we find that the effects estimated from the surveys match the effects of the same attributes in the behavioral benchmark remarkably well. We also find that seemingly subtle differences in survey designs can produce significant differences in performance. Overall, the paired conjoint design performs the best.
The entire article is here.
Editor's note: This research is significant when ethics educators use vignettes to help psychologists learn about their ethical decision-making process and moral beliefs.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive enhancement
By Caviola Lucius, Mannino Adriano, Savulescu Julian, Faulmüller Nadira
Front. Syst. Neurosci., 15 October 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00195
Research into cognitive biases that impair human judgment has mostly been applied to the area of economic decision-making. Ethical decision-making has been comparatively neglected. Since ethical decisions often involve very high individual as well as collective stakes, analyzing how cognitive biases affect them can be expected to yield important results. In this theoretical article, we consider the ethical debate about cognitive enhancement (CE) and suggest a number of cognitive biases that are likely to affect moral intuitions and judgments about CE: status quo bias, loss aversion, risk aversion, omission bias, scope insensitivity, nature bias, and optimistic bias. We find that there are more well-documented biases that are likely to cause irrational aversion to CE than biases in the opposite direction. This suggests that common attitudes about CE are predominantly negatively biased. Within this new perspective, we hope that subsequent research will be able to elaborate this hypothesis and develop effective de-biasing techniques that can help increase the rationality of the public CE debate and thus improve our ethical decision-making.
The entire article is here.
Front. Syst. Neurosci., 15 October 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00195
Research into cognitive biases that impair human judgment has mostly been applied to the area of economic decision-making. Ethical decision-making has been comparatively neglected. Since ethical decisions often involve very high individual as well as collective stakes, analyzing how cognitive biases affect them can be expected to yield important results. In this theoretical article, we consider the ethical debate about cognitive enhancement (CE) and suggest a number of cognitive biases that are likely to affect moral intuitions and judgments about CE: status quo bias, loss aversion, risk aversion, omission bias, scope insensitivity, nature bias, and optimistic bias. We find that there are more well-documented biases that are likely to cause irrational aversion to CE than biases in the opposite direction. This suggests that common attitudes about CE are predominantly negatively biased. Within this new perspective, we hope that subsequent research will be able to elaborate this hypothesis and develop effective de-biasing techniques that can help increase the rationality of the public CE debate and thus improve our ethical decision-making.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Clinical supervision of psychotherapy: essential ethics issues for supervisors and supervisees
By Jeffrey E. Barnett and Corey H. Molzon
J Clin Psychol 2014 Nov 14;70(11):1051-61. Epub 2014 Sep 14.
Abstract
Clinical supervision is an essential aspect of every mental health professional's training. The importance of ensuring that supervision is provided competently, ethically, and legally is explained. The elements of the ethical practice of supervision are described and explained. Specific issues addressed include informed consent and the supervision contract, supervisor and supervisee competence, attention to issues of diversity and multicultural competence, boundaries and multiple relationships in the supervision relationship, documentation and record keeping by both supervisor and supervisee, evaluation and feedback, self-care and the ongoing promotion of wellness, emergency coverage, and the ending of the supervision relationship. Additionally, the role of clinical supervisor as mentor, professional role model, and gatekeeper for the profession are discussed. Specific recommendations are provided for ethically and effectively conducting the supervision relationship and for addressing commonly arising dilemmas that supervisors and supervisees may confront.
The entire article is here.
J Clin Psychol 2014 Nov 14;70(11):1051-61. Epub 2014 Sep 14.
Abstract
Clinical supervision is an essential aspect of every mental health professional's training. The importance of ensuring that supervision is provided competently, ethically, and legally is explained. The elements of the ethical practice of supervision are described and explained. Specific issues addressed include informed consent and the supervision contract, supervisor and supervisee competence, attention to issues of diversity and multicultural competence, boundaries and multiple relationships in the supervision relationship, documentation and record keeping by both supervisor and supervisee, evaluation and feedback, self-care and the ongoing promotion of wellness, emergency coverage, and the ending of the supervision relationship. Additionally, the role of clinical supervisor as mentor, professional role model, and gatekeeper for the profession are discussed. Specific recommendations are provided for ethically and effectively conducting the supervision relationship and for addressing commonly arising dilemmas that supervisors and supervisees may confront.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Death by Robot
By Robin Marantz Henig
The New York Times Magazine
Originally published January 9, 2015
Imagine it’s a Sunday in the not-too-distant future. An elderly woman named Sylvia is confined to bed and in pain after breaking two ribs in a fall. She is being tended by a helper robot; let’s call it Fabulon. Sylvia calls out to Fabulon asking for a dose of painkiller. What should Fabulon do?
The coders who built Fabulon have programmed it with a set of instructions: The robot must not hurt its human. The robot must do what its human asks it to do. The robot must not administer medication without first contacting its supervisor for permission. On most days, these rules work fine. On this Sunday, though, Fabulon cannot reach the supervisor because the wireless connection in Sylvia’s house is down. Sylvia’s voice is getting louder, and her requests for pain meds become more insistent.
The entire article is here.
The New York Times Magazine
Originally published January 9, 2015
Imagine it’s a Sunday in the not-too-distant future. An elderly woman named Sylvia is confined to bed and in pain after breaking two ribs in a fall. She is being tended by a helper robot; let’s call it Fabulon. Sylvia calls out to Fabulon asking for a dose of painkiller. What should Fabulon do?
The coders who built Fabulon have programmed it with a set of instructions: The robot must not hurt its human. The robot must do what its human asks it to do. The robot must not administer medication without first contacting its supervisor for permission. On most days, these rules work fine. On this Sunday, though, Fabulon cannot reach the supervisor because the wireless connection in Sylvia’s house is down. Sylvia’s voice is getting louder, and her requests for pain meds become more insistent.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Self-Driving Cars: Safer, but What of Their Morals
By Justin Pritchard
Associated Press
Originally posted November 19, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
"This is one of the most profoundly serious decisions we can make. Program a machine that can foreseeably lead to someone's death," said Lin. "When we make programming decisions, we expect those to be as right as we can be."
What right looks like may differ from company to company, but according to Lin automakers have a duty to show that they have wrestled with these complex questions and publicly reveal the answers they reach.
The entire article is here.
Associated Press
Originally posted November 19, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
"This is one of the most profoundly serious decisions we can make. Program a machine that can foreseeably lead to someone's death," said Lin. "When we make programming decisions, we expect those to be as right as we can be."
What right looks like may differ from company to company, but according to Lin automakers have a duty to show that they have wrestled with these complex questions and publicly reveal the answers they reach.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Ethical trap: robot paralysed by choice of who to save
By Aviva Rutkin
The New Scientist
Originally published September 14, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov's fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.
At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.
The entire article, with video, is here.
The New Scientist
Originally published September 14, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov's fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.
At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.
The entire article, with video, is here.
Monday, August 18, 2014
5 Reasons Ethical Culture Doesn’t Just Happen
By Linda Fisher Thornton
Leading in Context
Originally posted August 6, 2014
Don’t assume that an ethical culture will just happen in your workplace. Even if you are a good leader, ethical culture is a delicate thing, requiring intentional positive leadership and daily tending. It requires more than good leadership, more than trust building, and more than good hiring.
Why does building an ethical culture require so much more than good leadership? Ethical culture is a system of systems, and just putting in good leadership, trust-building and good hiring doesn’t make it healthy.
The entire blog post is here.
Leading in Context
Originally posted August 6, 2014
Don’t assume that an ethical culture will just happen in your workplace. Even if you are a good leader, ethical culture is a delicate thing, requiring intentional positive leadership and daily tending. It requires more than good leadership, more than trust building, and more than good hiring.
Why does building an ethical culture require so much more than good leadership? Ethical culture is a system of systems, and just putting in good leadership, trust-building and good hiring doesn’t make it healthy.
The entire blog post is here.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Episode 13: Ethics Education and Vignette Analysis (Number 2)
Lucky Episode 13 mirrors Episode 6 in that the content is similar. In the first half of the program, John speaks with Dr. Donald McAleer, psychologist and ethics educator, and his pre-doctoral intern Reneh Karamians about ethics education in graduate programs and at internship sites. We sprinkle in personal experience and the Acculturation Model focusing on how students and early career psychologists may think about ethical decision-making. In the second half, the participants discuss Vignette #5, A Tricky Situation from the "Vignette Warehouse" at the Ethics and Psychology site. Dr. McAleer and Intern Reneh arrive at different conclusions as to how to handle the vignette, which nicely models that there can be more than one right answer when dealing with ethical dilemmas.
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Outline two important components in ethics education,
2. Identify the competing ethical principles in the vignette, and,
3. Practice integrating personal values with professional ethics.
Click here to earn one APA-approved CE credit
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Outline two important components in ethics education,
2. Identify the competing ethical principles in the vignette, and,
3. Practice integrating personal values with professional ethics.
Click here to earn one APA-approved CE credit
Or listen directly below
Information on Dr. Don McAleer's Practice and Associated Pre-Doc Internship
Erie Psychological Consortium
Northshore Psychological Associates
Contact Don McAleer, PsyD, ABPP by email
Relevant Resources for this Podcast
Episode 4: Ethical Decision-making Part 1
Episode 5: Ethical Decision-making Part 2
Nonrational Processes in Ethical Decision-making
Mark Rogerson, Michael C. Gottlieb Mitchell M. Handelsman Samuel Knapp & Jeffrey Younggren
Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics ( 4th ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55.
Information on Dr. Don McAleer's Practice and Associated Pre-Doc Internship
Erie Psychological Consortium
Northshore Psychological Associates
Contact Don McAleer, PsyD, ABPP by email
Relevant Resources for this Podcast
Episode 4: Ethical Decision-making Part 1
Episode 5: Ethical Decision-making Part 2
Nonrational Processes in Ethical Decision-making
Mark Rogerson, Michael C. Gottlieb Mitchell M. Handelsman Samuel Knapp & Jeffrey Younggren
Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics ( 4th ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Stress undermines empathic abilities in men but increases them in women
By Sissa Medialab
Science Daily
Originally published March 17, 2014
Stressed males tend to become more self-centered and less able to distinguish their own emotions and intentions from those of other people. For women the exact opposite is true. Stress, this problem that haunts us every day, could be undermining not only our health but also our relationships with other people, especially for men. Stressed women, however, become more “prosocial,” according to new research.
The entire review is here.
The original article is:
L. Tomova, B. von Dawans, M. Heinrichs, G. Silani, C. Lamm. Is stress affecting our ability to tune into others? Evidence for gender differences in the effects of stress on self-other distinction. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2014; 43: 95 DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.02.006
Editor's Note: These findings may have importance in terms of ethical decision-making while under duress.
Science Daily
Originally published March 17, 2014
Stressed males tend to become more self-centered and less able to distinguish their own emotions and intentions from those of other people. For women the exact opposite is true. Stress, this problem that haunts us every day, could be undermining not only our health but also our relationships with other people, especially for men. Stressed women, however, become more “prosocial,” according to new research.
The entire review is here.
The original article is:
L. Tomova, B. von Dawans, M. Heinrichs, G. Silani, C. Lamm. Is stress affecting our ability to tune into others? Evidence for gender differences in the effects of stress on self-other distinction. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2014; 43: 95 DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.02.006
Editor's Note: These findings may have importance in terms of ethical decision-making while under duress.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Episode 5: Ethical Decision-Making (Part 2)
In Episode 5, John continues to outline relevant factors related to ethical decision-making. The psychologist's fiduciary responsibility is emphasized. Additionally, John outlines one ethical decision-making model as well as cognitive biases and emotional factors involved with ethical decision-making. John will make suggestions on how to improve ethical decision-making.
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Describe one ethical decision-making model,
2. Identify one cognitive bias and one emotional factor that can adversely affect decision-
making, and,
3. Outline three strategies to aid with ethical decision-making.
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved Continuing Education credit
Find this podcast in iTunes
Listen here directly
Find the Episode 5 video on Vimeo here
Find Episode 5 slides on Slideshare here
Resources
Motivated Moral Reasoning in Psychotherapy
John Gavazzi and Sam Knapp
Nonrational Processes in Ethical Decision-making
Mark Rogerson, Michael C. Gottlieb Mitchell M. Handelsman Samuel Knapp & Jeffrey Younggren
The Motivated Use of Moral Principles
David Pizarro, Eric Ulhmann, David Tannehbaum, and Peter H. Ditto
Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model
Thomas M. Jones
Avoiding bias in medical ethical decision-making. Lessons to be learnt from psychology research
H. Albisser Schleger, N. R. Oehninger, and S. Reiter-Theil
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Describe one ethical decision-making model,
2. Identify one cognitive bias and one emotional factor that can adversely affect decision-
making, and,
3. Outline three strategies to aid with ethical decision-making.
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved Continuing Education credit
Find this podcast in iTunes
Listen here directly
Find the Episode 5 video on Vimeo here
Find Episode 5 slides on Slideshare here
Resources
Motivated Moral Reasoning in Psychotherapy
John Gavazzi and Sam Knapp
Nonrational Processes in Ethical Decision-making
Mark Rogerson, Michael C. Gottlieb Mitchell M. Handelsman Samuel Knapp & Jeffrey Younggren
The Motivated Use of Moral Principles
David Pizarro, Eric Ulhmann, David Tannehbaum, and Peter H. Ditto
Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model
Thomas M. Jones
Avoiding bias in medical ethical decision-making. Lessons to be learnt from psychology research
H. Albisser Schleger, N. R. Oehninger, and S. Reiter-Theil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)