By John B. Lantos
The Hastings Center Bioethics Forum
Originally posted June 5, 2013
In a thoughtful, nuanced letter to the University of Alabama (the home of the Principal Investigator of the SUPPORT study), the Office for Human Research Protection announced that it has “put on hold all compliance actions against UAB relating to the SUPPORT case.” Further, OHRP promises not to initiate compliance actions “in studies involving similar designs” until it clarifies the guidelines for such studies. In doing so, it acknowledges “widespread misunderstanding about the risks that are required to be disclosed in obtaining informed consent for certain types of studies.” (Previous posts on the SUPPORT controversy are here, here, here, and here.)
OHRP promises that the process of drafting new guidelines will be “as open as possible, with input from all interested parties.” To achieve this, it will “engage in the usual notice and comment process with regard to draft guidance” and “will also conduct an open public meeting on this topic.” This is a welcome development.
The letter also suggests the positions that OHRP will take in these discussions. It focuses on three main points.
First, the letter acknowledges that these discussions will focus on situations where the standard of care includes known and widespread practice variation with no reliable evidence on which practices are associated with which risks or benefits. “When the SUPPORT study was initiated,” it states, “there was no clear recent evidence indicating that different oxygenation levels with the then-current standard of care (85%- 95%) would produce differences in neurological damage or survival.”
The entire blog post is here.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Studying Childhood Morality via Social Groups and Cognition
Rhodes, M. (in press). Naive theories of social groups. Child Development.
Here are some excerpts from this paper regarding the importance of studying moral development.
(cut)
The entire paper is here.
Here are some excerpts from this paper regarding the importance of studying moral development.
Yet, despite preschoolers’ general commitment to fairness, the possibility that children view people as having special moral obligations to their own group members cannot be entirely ruled out. This possibility is consistent with several theoretical accounts of morality proposed by social and cultural psychologists (Cohen, Montoya, & Insko, 2006; Dovidio, 1984; Haidt & Joseph, 2007; Haidt & Kesebir, 2010; Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002; Levine & Thompson, 2004), and there is recent developmental data that appear consistent with this possibility (Castelli, De Amicis, & Sherman, 2007; Rhodes & Brickman, 2011). Thus, this remains an important area for future work.
(cut)
Whereas the majority of research in this area has examined how children appeal to individual mental states to make these predictions, there has recently been increasing emphasis on understanding how children make these predictions by reference to social causes that extend beyond the individual, including social categories, norms, and morality (Hirschfeld, 1996; Olson & Dweck, 2008; Wellman & Miller, 2008). This emphasis—on considering children’s naı¨ve sociology along with their naive psychology—is particularly important given that preschool-age children often weight the causal features specified by naive sociology (e.g., categories, norms) more heavily than individual mental states (e.g., traits, desires) to predict individual action (Berndt & Heller, 1986; Biernat, 1991; Diesendruck & haLevi, 2006; Kalish, 2002; Kalish & Shiverick, 2004; Lawson & Kalish, 2006; Rhodes & Gelman, 2008; Taylor, 1996).
The entire paper is here.
Blurring the lines of ethics when doctors use social media
By Wes Fisher
Dr.KevinMD Blog
Originally posted on May 28, 2013
The position paper from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards, is a humbling reminder of the challenges that today’s physicians face when entering the online space.
Their recommendations for online medical professionalism, written by ethics committees for the two organizations, “provides recommendations about the influence of social media on the patient–physician relationship, the role of these media in public perception of physician behaviors, and strategies for physician–physician communication that preserve confidentiality while best using these technologies” — no small amount of territory to summarize.
But given the tenure of their document, I should probably hang up this blog right now. After all, why risk being vulnerable in the online world? While well-meaning on one hand, we should appreciate that physicians have officially been put on notice on how to behave online.
To be fair, I agree with most of what they say. All the things about patient confidentiality are appropriate. All the things about respect for persons, better still.
But to me, the part of the document that wanders off into the “influence of social media on the patient-physician relationship” and the influence of social media on the “public perception of physician behaviors,” is more difficult to gauge in its benefit or detriment to the public discourse.
The entire article is here.
Dr.KevinMD Blog
Originally posted on May 28, 2013
The position paper from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards, is a humbling reminder of the challenges that today’s physicians face when entering the online space.
Their recommendations for online medical professionalism, written by ethics committees for the two organizations, “provides recommendations about the influence of social media on the patient–physician relationship, the role of these media in public perception of physician behaviors, and strategies for physician–physician communication that preserve confidentiality while best using these technologies” — no small amount of territory to summarize.
But given the tenure of their document, I should probably hang up this blog right now. After all, why risk being vulnerable in the online world? While well-meaning on one hand, we should appreciate that physicians have officially been put on notice on how to behave online.
To be fair, I agree with most of what they say. All the things about patient confidentiality are appropriate. All the things about respect for persons, better still.
But to me, the part of the document that wanders off into the “influence of social media on the patient-physician relationship” and the influence of social media on the “public perception of physician behaviors,” is more difficult to gauge in its benefit or detriment to the public discourse.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Needed: New approaches to defuse 'suicide contagion' among teens
How should we talk about suicide? Mental health experts have some ideas
By Andre Mayer
CBC News
Posted: May 23, 2013
Experts on adolescent behaviour say the apparent susceptibility of Canadian teens to the idea of suicide shows the need to change public discussion about this sensitive topic.
Among the suggestions being put forward are finding new ways to refer to the act, to put it in a more appropriate context and training crisis-intervention teams to be more aware of how young people can respond to a suicide in their midst.
A study published May 21 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that teens who knew of schoolmates who took their own lives were more likely to consider it or attempt it themselves — a phenomenon the authors call "suicide contagion."
The entire article is here.
By Andre Mayer
CBC News
Posted: May 23, 2013
Experts on adolescent behaviour say the apparent susceptibility of Canadian teens to the idea of suicide shows the need to change public discussion about this sensitive topic.
Among the suggestions being put forward are finding new ways to refer to the act, to put it in a more appropriate context and training crisis-intervention teams to be more aware of how young people can respond to a suicide in their midst.
A study published May 21 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that teens who knew of schoolmates who took their own lives were more likely to consider it or attempt it themselves — a phenomenon the authors call "suicide contagion."
The entire article is here.
Ethics Without Borders
By Cynthia Schoeman
The Ethics Monitor
For organisations that strive to be ethical, there are two important criteria for earning and maintaining an ethical status: the continual, consistent application of their values to all their stakeholders and their on-going adherence to all applicable laws and regulations. If a company’s commitment to their values or their compliance with regulations is intermittent or applied selectively, it erodes their ethical standing. The constancy of ethical behaviour reflects the practice of “ethics without borders”.
Borderless ethics necessitates that the organisation has a very inclusive ethical boundary, whereby ethics is exercised beyond self-interest and includes all stakeholders affected by the company’s operations. By contrast, an exclusive ethical boundary, which implies that ethics is exercised only for the organisation’s own benefit and relative to a select few stakeholders (typically shareholders), totally contradicts an approach of ethics without borders. While the exclusion of other stakeholders does not necessarily mean that the company is behaving unethically, it does highlight the fact that the company prioritises their own goals and needs above others’ or that they don’t give equal priority to their various stakeholders – such as communities who are impacted by the company’s operations. Added to that, organisations are rarely obliged - for example, by law - to include all stakeholder groups formally within their ethical boundary. So, although such companies may not be technically behaving unethically or illegally, their limited application of ethics means that they would rarely be regarded as an ethical organisation.
There is a further challenge to following an approach of ethics without borders. This emanates from the recurring discourse in workplace ethics that ethics differs for different people, cultures, countries and situations. This view needs to be addressed not only because it appears to invalidate the possibility for ethics without borders, but also because it undermines the pursuit of common and shared organisational ethics. The globalised nature of the world of work particularly makes for a multitude of differences in the workplace. Yet, ironically, globalisation makes the practice of ethics without borders all the more valuable, not least for the clarity it offers all affected parties and the fairness it embodies by operating in terms of the same ethics globally.
The entire story is here.
Editor's Note: This article has direct connections to individual psychologists in private practice, businesses in general, state psychological associations, and the American Psychological Association.
The Ethics Monitor
For organisations that strive to be ethical, there are two important criteria for earning and maintaining an ethical status: the continual, consistent application of their values to all their stakeholders and their on-going adherence to all applicable laws and regulations. If a company’s commitment to their values or their compliance with regulations is intermittent or applied selectively, it erodes their ethical standing. The constancy of ethical behaviour reflects the practice of “ethics without borders”.
Borderless ethics necessitates that the organisation has a very inclusive ethical boundary, whereby ethics is exercised beyond self-interest and includes all stakeholders affected by the company’s operations. By contrast, an exclusive ethical boundary, which implies that ethics is exercised only for the organisation’s own benefit and relative to a select few stakeholders (typically shareholders), totally contradicts an approach of ethics without borders. While the exclusion of other stakeholders does not necessarily mean that the company is behaving unethically, it does highlight the fact that the company prioritises their own goals and needs above others’ or that they don’t give equal priority to their various stakeholders – such as communities who are impacted by the company’s operations. Added to that, organisations are rarely obliged - for example, by law - to include all stakeholder groups formally within their ethical boundary. So, although such companies may not be technically behaving unethically or illegally, their limited application of ethics means that they would rarely be regarded as an ethical organisation.
There is a further challenge to following an approach of ethics without borders. This emanates from the recurring discourse in workplace ethics that ethics differs for different people, cultures, countries and situations. This view needs to be addressed not only because it appears to invalidate the possibility for ethics without borders, but also because it undermines the pursuit of common and shared organisational ethics. The globalised nature of the world of work particularly makes for a multitude of differences in the workplace. Yet, ironically, globalisation makes the practice of ethics without borders all the more valuable, not least for the clarity it offers all affected parties and the fairness it embodies by operating in terms of the same ethics globally.
The entire story is here.
Editor's Note: This article has direct connections to individual psychologists in private practice, businesses in general, state psychological associations, and the American Psychological Association.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Vignette 26: A Political Donation
Dr. Fair performs child custody evaluations. She is well known in both the legal and psychological communities. Recently, Dr. Fair received solicitations for contributions from a candidate for judge in her county, Deloris True. She has worked with Attorney True on numerous occasions and believes that she would be a real asset as a judge in her community. She clearly wants this individual to be elected as a judge.
However, if Attorney True is elected as judge, Dr. Fair will likely appear before her in court as an expert witness. Will contributing to the campaign of the judicial candidate be contraindicated because it could lead to a perception of bias in future court cases? Is the contribution warranted because Dr. Fair believes that Attorney True is highly qualified for that position?
In her state, political contributions over $50 are in the public domain and anyone could see that Dr. Fair made the contribution. Dr. Fair would like to show her financial support by contributing more than $50. (Dr. Fair has already ruled out giving 10 checks for $49.95.). Concerned about ethics and reputation, Dr. Fair contacts you for a consult.
What are the potential ethical issues involved in the situation?
What are the competing ethical principles?
What are your suggestions for Dr. Fair?
However, if Attorney True is elected as judge, Dr. Fair will likely appear before her in court as an expert witness. Will contributing to the campaign of the judicial candidate be contraindicated because it could lead to a perception of bias in future court cases? Is the contribution warranted because Dr. Fair believes that Attorney True is highly qualified for that position?
In her state, political contributions over $50 are in the public domain and anyone could see that Dr. Fair made the contribution. Dr. Fair would like to show her financial support by contributing more than $50. (Dr. Fair has already ruled out giving 10 checks for $49.95.). Concerned about ethics and reputation, Dr. Fair contacts you for a consult.
What are the potential ethical issues involved in the situation?
What are the competing ethical principles?
What are your suggestions for Dr. Fair?
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Gag Orders on Sexuality
By Allie Grasgreen
Inside Higher Ed
Originally posted on May 23, 2013
When Brittney Griner, Baylor University’s star basketball player and one of the most celebrated athletes in the history of the sport, came out publicly as gay last month, she was rather nonchalant about it. She didn’t write a Sports Illustrated cover story – à la professional basketball player Jason Collins, a few weeks later – she just sort of mentioned it in media interviews. Griner is “someone who’s always been open,” she said, with family, friends and teammates.
But, as Griner revealed a few weeks later, she wasn’t allowed to be open as much as she might have liked. That’s because Baylor head coach Kim Mulkey told her and her teammates not to talk publicly about their sexuality.
“It was a recruiting thing,” Griner told ESPN. “The coaches thought that if it seemed like they condoned it, people wouldn’t let their kids come play for Baylor.”
Griner's account followed on the heels of speculation that her coming out signaled a new age at Baylor – a private Christian university whose nondiscrimination policy does not cover sexual orientation and whose student handbook entry for “sexual misconduct” includes as examples of inappropriate actions "homosexual behavior" and participation in “advocacy groups which promote understanding of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching.”
City Seeking to Diversify Foster System
By Mara Gay
The Wall Street Journal
Originally posted on June 2, 2013
New York City is launching a campaign to recruit gay and lesbian foster parents, part of a major push to expand the kinds of families who consider fostering and to find more welcoming homes for children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer.
The public ad campaign, set to roll out this week, features images of an interracial gay couple spending time with a young child. "Be the reason she has hope," one of the ads reads. In another, a black woman is pictured alone with a white teenage boy. "Be the reason it gets better," the message says.
How many of the nearly 13,000 children in New York City's foster-care system identify as LGBTQ is unclear because the city does not keep such data. But, citing anecdotal evidence, researchers, child advocates and city officials insist that the children are disproportionately represented in the foster care system and say the need to find them supportive homes is great.
"When we decided to do this campaign we knew that LGBTQ young people are disproportionately represented in our foster care population, especially among our teens," said Ronald Richter, commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, the city's child welfare agency.
Mr. Richter, citing a study the city commissioned last year, said the data show that adults who identify as LGBTQ are more likely to want to foster a child who may also identify that way.
The entire story is here.
The Wall Street Journal
Originally posted on June 2, 2013
New York City is launching a campaign to recruit gay and lesbian foster parents, part of a major push to expand the kinds of families who consider fostering and to find more welcoming homes for children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer.
The public ad campaign, set to roll out this week, features images of an interracial gay couple spending time with a young child. "Be the reason she has hope," one of the ads reads. In another, a black woman is pictured alone with a white teenage boy. "Be the reason it gets better," the message says.
How many of the nearly 13,000 children in New York City's foster-care system identify as LGBTQ is unclear because the city does not keep such data. But, citing anecdotal evidence, researchers, child advocates and city officials insist that the children are disproportionately represented in the foster care system and say the need to find them supportive homes is great.
"When we decided to do this campaign we knew that LGBTQ young people are disproportionately represented in our foster care population, especially among our teens," said Ronald Richter, commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, the city's child welfare agency.
Mr. Richter, citing a study the city commissioned last year, said the data show that adults who identify as LGBTQ are more likely to want to foster a child who may also identify that way.
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Empathy Plays a Key Role in Moral Judgments
Science Daily
Originally published May 22, 2013
Is it permissible to harm one to save many? Those who tend to say "yes" when faced with this classic dilemma are likely to be deficient in a specific kind of empathy, according to a report published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE.
Philosophers and psychologists have long argued about whether there is one "right" answer to such moral questions, be it utilitarian ethics, which advocates saving as many as possible, even if it requires personally harming an individual, or non-utilitarian principles, which mandate strict adherence to rules like "don't kill" that are rooted in the value of human life and dignity.
In their new report, co-authors Liane Young, an assistant professor of psychology at Boston College, and Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht of the Institute of Cognitive Neurology and Favaloro University in Argentina, address two key questions related to moral decision-making: First, what specific aspect of emotional responding is relevant for these judgments? Second, is this aspect of emotional responding selectively reduced in utilitarian respondents or enhanced in non-utilitarians?
The entire story is here.
The entire article is here.
Abstract
Is it permissible to harm one to save many? Classic moral dilemmas are often defined by the conflict between a putatively rational response to maximize aggregate welfare (i.e., the utilitarian judgment) and an emotional aversion to harm (i.e., the non-utilitarian judgment). Here, we address two questions. First, what specific aspect of emotional responding is relevant for these judgments? Second, is this aspect of emotional responding selectively reduced in utilitarians or enhanced in non-utilitarians? The results reveal a key relationship between moral judgment and empathic concern in particular (i.e., feelings of warmth and compassion in response to someone in distress). Utilitarian participants showed significantly reduced empathic concern on an independent empathy measure. These findings therefore reveal diminished empathic concern in utilitarian moral judges.
Citation: Gleichgerrcht E, Young L (2013) Low Levels of Empathic Concern Predict Utilitarian Moral Judgment. PLoS ONE 8(4): e60418. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418
Originally published May 22, 2013
Is it permissible to harm one to save many? Those who tend to say "yes" when faced with this classic dilemma are likely to be deficient in a specific kind of empathy, according to a report published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE.
Philosophers and psychologists have long argued about whether there is one "right" answer to such moral questions, be it utilitarian ethics, which advocates saving as many as possible, even if it requires personally harming an individual, or non-utilitarian principles, which mandate strict adherence to rules like "don't kill" that are rooted in the value of human life and dignity.
In their new report, co-authors Liane Young, an assistant professor of psychology at Boston College, and Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht of the Institute of Cognitive Neurology and Favaloro University in Argentina, address two key questions related to moral decision-making: First, what specific aspect of emotional responding is relevant for these judgments? Second, is this aspect of emotional responding selectively reduced in utilitarian respondents or enhanced in non-utilitarians?
The entire story is here.
The entire article is here.
Abstract
Is it permissible to harm one to save many? Classic moral dilemmas are often defined by the conflict between a putatively rational response to maximize aggregate welfare (i.e., the utilitarian judgment) and an emotional aversion to harm (i.e., the non-utilitarian judgment). Here, we address two questions. First, what specific aspect of emotional responding is relevant for these judgments? Second, is this aspect of emotional responding selectively reduced in utilitarians or enhanced in non-utilitarians? The results reveal a key relationship between moral judgment and empathic concern in particular (i.e., feelings of warmth and compassion in response to someone in distress). Utilitarian participants showed significantly reduced empathic concern on an independent empathy measure. These findings therefore reveal diminished empathic concern in utilitarian moral judges.
Citation: Gleichgerrcht E, Young L (2013) Low Levels of Empathic Concern Predict Utilitarian Moral Judgment. PLoS ONE 8(4): e60418. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)