1 / 6

Analyzing Cases and Justifying Decisions

Sources of Ethical Disagreements. Disagreements arise when:people have different and competing interestswhen they disagree about relevant facts e.g., probabilities of benefits or magnitude of harmwhen they disagree about ethical norms e.g., different ideas of whether justice requires equal op

Antony
Télécharger la présentation

Analyzing Cases and Justifying Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Analyzing Cases and Justifying Decisions James DuBois, PhD, DSc

    2. Sources of Ethical Disagreements Disagreements arise when: people have different and competing interests when they disagree about relevant facts e.g., probabilities of benefits or magnitude of harm when they disagree about ethical norms e.g., different ideas of whether justice requires equal opportunity or equal outcomes

    3. When can a problem-solving framework offer? Can help you to consider all relevant factors Can help you to exclude ethically unacceptable alternatives Can structure debate, provide common framework Can NOT guarantee youll arrive at the one right answer or will eliminate all disagreement

    4. Analysis: 4 key elements Stakeholders: e.g., participants, researchers, sponsors, institutions, community Facts: e.g., anticipated benefits and risks, scientific merit, feasibility of design, costs Norms: e.g., Belmont principles, specific norms generated by IRBs, fair process Options: e.g., change study design, expand process of review and design, add oversight (Mnemonic device: So Far No Objections)

    5. Justification If a study infringes on a norm that the law or professional ethics treats as a moral absolute, then you must modify it When study will involve overriding or infringing on a prima facie norm or value First, clearly state the goal of your action that is, no what goods you aim to achieve and state what goods or values you will be compromising Then, see if you can justify it using the following 5 tests

    6. Justification Criteria Effectiveness: Will the study (or policy or action) be effective in achieving the desired goal? Necessity: Is the study necessary to achieve the goal or is there an alternative that wont infringe on a competing value? Proportionality: Is the desired goal important enough to justify overriding another principle or value? Least infringement: Is the study designed to minimize infringement on the value that conflict with it? Transparency: Are you prepared to publicly justify your decision? (Based on Childress et al 2002)

More Related