By Emma Levine
SPSP Blog
Originally posted May 1, 2014
We tend to think of lying as a vice and honesty as a virtue. For hundreds of years, theologians and philosophers have suggested that lying is wrong. For example, almost six hundred years ago, St. Augustine stated, “To me…it seems certain that every lie is a sin.” The prohibition of lying is deeply ingrained in most major religions and the presumption that lying is wrong leads scholars, parents, and leaders to broadly condemn lying.
Despite the characterization of lying as unethical, most people don’t completely avoid lying. Sometimes we lie for selfish reasons, but quite often, we lie to help and protect others. We tell prosocial lies.
The entire article is here.
Here is a link to the article: Is it Ever Ethical to Lie to a Patient?
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
When Doctors Treat Patients Like Themselves
By Abigail Zuger
The New York Times
Originally posted May 19, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Professional training may not remove the interpersonal chemistry that binds us to some and estranges us from others, but it can neutralize these forces somewhat, enough to enable civilized and productive dialogue among all comers. Yet until the day when we deal only in cells, organs and genes and not their human containers, we will, for better or worse, always see ourselves in some patients, our friends and relatives in others, and our patients will likewise instinctively experience doctor as mother or father, buddy or virtual stranger.
Are the ties that bind us for better, medically, or are they for worse? Is health care more effective when patient and doctor are the same — the same sex, class, race, tax bracket, sore feet and cholesterol level? Or does essential objectivity require some differences? When your doctor looks at you and sees a mirrored reflection, is that good for you, or bad?
The entire article is here.
The New York Times
Originally posted May 19, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Professional training may not remove the interpersonal chemistry that binds us to some and estranges us from others, but it can neutralize these forces somewhat, enough to enable civilized and productive dialogue among all comers. Yet until the day when we deal only in cells, organs and genes and not their human containers, we will, for better or worse, always see ourselves in some patients, our friends and relatives in others, and our patients will likewise instinctively experience doctor as mother or father, buddy or virtual stranger.
Are the ties that bind us for better, medically, or are they for worse? Is health care more effective when patient and doctor are the same — the same sex, class, race, tax bracket, sore feet and cholesterol level? Or does essential objectivity require some differences? When your doctor looks at you and sees a mirrored reflection, is that good for you, or bad?
The entire article is here.
I Don't Want to Be Right
By Maria Konnikova
The New Yorker
Originally published May 19, 2013
Last month, Brendan Nyhan, a professor of political science at Dartmouth, published the results of a study that he and a team of pediatricians and political scientists had been working on for three years. They had followed a group of almost two thousand parents, all of whom had at least one child under the age of seventeen, to test a simple relationship: Could various pro-vaccination campaigns change parental attitudes toward vaccines? Each household received one of four messages: a leaflet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating that there had been no evidence linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (M.M.R.) vaccine and autism; a leaflet from the Vaccine Information Statement on the dangers of the diseases that the M.M.R. vaccine prevents; photographs of children who had suffered from the diseases; and a dramatic story from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about an infant who almost died of measles. A control group did not receive any information at all. The goal was to test whether facts, science, emotions, or stories could make people change their minds.
The result was dramatic: a whole lot of nothing. None of the interventions worked.
The entire article is here.
The New Yorker
Originally published May 19, 2013
Last month, Brendan Nyhan, a professor of political science at Dartmouth, published the results of a study that he and a team of pediatricians and political scientists had been working on for three years. They had followed a group of almost two thousand parents, all of whom had at least one child under the age of seventeen, to test a simple relationship: Could various pro-vaccination campaigns change parental attitudes toward vaccines? Each household received one of four messages: a leaflet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating that there had been no evidence linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (M.M.R.) vaccine and autism; a leaflet from the Vaccine Information Statement on the dangers of the diseases that the M.M.R. vaccine prevents; photographs of children who had suffered from the diseases; and a dramatic story from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about an infant who almost died of measles. A control group did not receive any information at all. The goal was to test whether facts, science, emotions, or stories could make people change their minds.
The result was dramatic: a whole lot of nothing. None of the interventions worked.
The entire article is here.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Episode 10: Social Media for Psychologists
In this episode, John talks with Dr. David Palmiter about the basics of social media. They discuss why it is important for psychologists to understand social media as their patients are likely using various forms of social media. Psychologists also need to know what social media is before they participate. They discuss their use of social media as part of professional development. Psychologists need to know at least the basics about social media to practice psychotherapy effectively.
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Explain the concept of social media.
2. List two reasons every psychologist should be on Twitter.
3. Define the concept of branding.
Please read David Palmiter's article: To Tweet or Not to Tweet for an understanding of Twitter.
Find this podcast on iTunes
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved credit for this podcast
Listen directly here.
David Palmiter, PhD sites and contact information
Helping Parents.net
Hectic Parents Blog
Follow Dave on Twitter @HelpingParents
Resources
Palmiter, David. (2012). Positive Ethics Applied to Public Education Through Traditional Media and the Internet. In the APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology, Volume 2: Practice, Teaching and Research. Edited by Knapp, Gottlieb, Handelsman, and VandeCreek. Washington DC: The American Psychological Association.
10 Ways That Blogging Transformed My Private Practice
Julie Hanks
1 in 4 Americans now consults Google before booking an appointment with a doctor
Mark Sullivan
Social media: how does it really affect our mental health and well-being?
Medical News Today
Robi Ludwig: Fox News ‘homosexual impulses’ guest: My words were ‘twisted’
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Explain the concept of social media.
2. List two reasons every psychologist should be on Twitter.
3. Define the concept of branding.
Please read David Palmiter's article: To Tweet or Not to Tweet for an understanding of Twitter.
Find this podcast on iTunes
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved credit for this podcast
Listen directly here.
David Palmiter, PhD sites and contact information
Helping Parents.net
Hectic Parents Blog
Follow Dave on Twitter @HelpingParents
Resources
Palmiter, David. (2012). Positive Ethics Applied to Public Education Through Traditional Media and the Internet. In the APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology, Volume 2: Practice, Teaching and Research. Edited by Knapp, Gottlieb, Handelsman, and VandeCreek. Washington DC: The American Psychological Association.
10 Ways That Blogging Transformed My Private Practice
Julie Hanks
1 in 4 Americans now consults Google before booking an appointment with a doctor
Mark Sullivan
Social media: how does it really affect our mental health and well-being?
Medical News Today
Robi Ludwig: Fox News ‘homosexual impulses’ guest: My words were ‘twisted’
Sunday, June 8, 2014
On Privilege and Luck, or Why Success Breeds Success
By Ed Yong
The National Geographic
Originally published May 28, 2014
Ask successful people about the secrets of their success, and you’ll probably answers like passion, hard work, skill, focus, and having great ideas. Very few people, if any, would reply with “privilege and luck”. We’re often blind to these factors and they make for less inspiring stories. But time and again, we see that the advantages that give us a head-start and the accidents that ease our path can make or break a career.
In 1968, sociologist Robert Merton noted that in several areas of science, advantage accumulates. Well-known scientists, for example, are more likely to get further recognition than equally productive peers of lesser renown. Merton called this the Matthew effect after a biblical verse that says “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
The entire story is here.
The National Geographic
Originally published May 28, 2014
Ask successful people about the secrets of their success, and you’ll probably answers like passion, hard work, skill, focus, and having great ideas. Very few people, if any, would reply with “privilege and luck”. We’re often blind to these factors and they make for less inspiring stories. But time and again, we see that the advantages that give us a head-start and the accidents that ease our path can make or break a career.
In 1968, sociologist Robert Merton noted that in several areas of science, advantage accumulates. Well-known scientists, for example, are more likely to get further recognition than equally productive peers of lesser renown. Merton called this the Matthew effect after a biblical verse that says “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
The entire story is here.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
The ethics of personal enhancement, from beta blockers to ADHD drugs
By Joe Gelonesi
The Philosopher's Zone
Originally posted May 16, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
It’s a question for the times, as the cognitive enhancement revolution rolls on. The use of substances to help with performance—from sitting exams to playing recitals—has well and truly gone beyond novelty status.
Drugs previously reserved for ADHD are now being imbibed by students to sharpen performance. There is no shortage of first-person testimony mixed with consumer advice on YouTube. Vincent cites studies in Australia which suggest that our appetite for such drugs is greater than in the USA. She also uses the example of Simon Tedeschi, who in January published an article about his extensive use of beta blockers to subdue stage fright. Tedeschi, an esteemed local musician, has no qualms about coming out over his use of what is primarily intended as blood pressure medication. He’s not alone in the performing arts community.
The entire story is here.
The Philosopher's Zone
Originally posted May 16, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
It’s a question for the times, as the cognitive enhancement revolution rolls on. The use of substances to help with performance—from sitting exams to playing recitals—has well and truly gone beyond novelty status.
Drugs previously reserved for ADHD are now being imbibed by students to sharpen performance. There is no shortage of first-person testimony mixed with consumer advice on YouTube. Vincent cites studies in Australia which suggest that our appetite for such drugs is greater than in the USA. She also uses the example of Simon Tedeschi, who in January published an article about his extensive use of beta blockers to subdue stage fright. Tedeschi, an esteemed local musician, has no qualms about coming out over his use of what is primarily intended as blood pressure medication. He’s not alone in the performing arts community.
The entire story is here.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Leigh Turner Addresses University of Minnesota Board of Regents
Published on May 17, 2014
In a public meeting, Professor Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics blasts the Board of Regents for defending psychiatric research abuse.
In a public meeting, Professor Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics blasts the Board of Regents for defending psychiatric research abuse.
Gained in translation
When moral dilemmas are posed in a foreign language, people become more coolly utilitarian
The Economist
Originally posted May 17, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Morally speaking, this is a troubling result. The language in which a dilemma is posed should make no difference to how it is answered. Linguists have wondered whether different languages encode different assumptions about morality, which might explain the result. But the effect existed for every combination of languages that the researchers looked at, so culture does not seem to explain things. Other studies in “trolleyology” have found that East Asians are less likely to make the coldly utilitarian calculation, and indeed none of the Korean subjects said they would push the fat man when asked in Korean. But 7.5% were prepared to when asked in English.
The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent. The subjects in the experiment were not native bilinguals, but had, on average, begun the study of their foreign language at age 14. (The average participant was 21.) The participants typically rated their ability with their acquired tongue at around 3.0 on a five-point scale. Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good—but not great.
The entire article is here.
The Economist
Originally posted May 17, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Morally speaking, this is a troubling result. The language in which a dilemma is posed should make no difference to how it is answered. Linguists have wondered whether different languages encode different assumptions about morality, which might explain the result. But the effect existed for every combination of languages that the researchers looked at, so culture does not seem to explain things. Other studies in “trolleyology” have found that East Asians are less likely to make the coldly utilitarian calculation, and indeed none of the Korean subjects said they would push the fat man when asked in Korean. But 7.5% were prepared to when asked in English.
The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent. The subjects in the experiment were not native bilinguals, but had, on average, begun the study of their foreign language at age 14. (The average participant was 21.) The participants typically rated their ability with their acquired tongue at around 3.0 on a five-point scale. Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good—but not great.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Creating a 'morality pill' more a question of ethics than science
By Katie Collins
Wired
Originally posted May 16, 2014
Is there any way that we could create a drug that would make us moral? This is the question Molly Crockett, neuroscientist at Oxford University, posed to the crowd at a Brain Boosters event organised as part of the NERRI Project in London this week.
Crockett was tackling the subject of neuro-enhancement -- the idea that we could potentially use science to make our brains in some way better. Much of the discussion at the event revolved around intelligence, but Crockett instead chose to tackle the subject of personality -- and more specifically, morality.
The entire article is here.
Wired
Originally posted May 16, 2014
Is there any way that we could create a drug that would make us moral? This is the question Molly Crockett, neuroscientist at Oxford University, posed to the crowd at a Brain Boosters event organised as part of the NERRI Project in London this week.
Crockett was tackling the subject of neuro-enhancement -- the idea that we could potentially use science to make our brains in some way better. Much of the discussion at the event revolved around intelligence, but Crockett instead chose to tackle the subject of personality -- and more specifically, morality.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)