Suchergebnisse
Filter
36 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Good Science: The Ethical Choreography of Stem Cell Research. By Charis Thompson. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2014. Pp. x+343. $36.00
In: The American journal of sociology, Band 120, Heft 6, S. 1895-1898
ISSN: 1537-5390
Progress in Bioethics: Science, Policy, and Politics
In: Contemporary sociology, Band 44, Heft 1, S. 94-96
ISSN: 1939-8638
Reinforcing medical authority: clinical ethics consultation and the resolution of conflicts in treatment decisions
In: Sociology of health & illness: a journal of medical sociology, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 307-326
ISSN: 1467-9566
AbstractDespite substantial efforts in the past 15 years to professionalise the field of clinical ethics consultation, sociologists have not re‐examined past hypotheses about the role of such services in medical decision‐making and their effect on physician authority. In relation to those hypotheses, we explore two questions: (i) What kinds of issues does ethics consultation resolve? and (ii) what is the nature of the resolution afforded by these consults? We examined ethics consultation records created between 2011 and mid‐2015 at a large tertiary care US hospital and found that in most cases, the problems addressed are not novel ethical dilemmas as classically conceived, but are instead disagreements between clinicians and patients or their surrogates about treatment. The resolution offered by a typical ethics consultation involves strategies to improve communication rather than the parsing of ethical obligations. In cases where disagreements persist, the proposed solution is most often based on technical clinical judgements, reinforcing the role of physician authority in patient care and the ethical decisions made about that care.
Bioethics as Missionary Work
In: Bioethics Around the Globe, S. 3-18
Bioethical concerns are global, bioethics is Western
Modern bioethics was born in the West and thus reflects, not surprisingly, the traditions of Western moral philosophy and political and social theory. When the work of bioethics was confined to the West, this background of socio-political theory and moral tradition posed few problems, but as bioethics has moved into other cultures - inside and outside of the Western world - it has become an agent of moral imperialism. We describe the moral imperialism of bioethics, discuss its dangers, and suggest that global bioethics will succeed only to the extent that it is local.
BASE
The view from here: bioethics and the social sciences
In: Sociology of health and illness monograph series
Human Biospecimens Come from People
In: Ethics & human research: E&HR : a publication of the Hastings Center, Band 41, Heft 2, S. 22-28
ISSN: 2578-2363
ABSTRACTContrary to the revised Common Rule, and contrary to the views of many bioethicists and researchers, we argue that broad consent should be sought for anticipated later research uses of deidentified biospecimens and health information collected during medical care. Individuals differ in the kinds of risk they find concerning and in their willingness to permit use of their biospecimens for future research. For this reason, asking their permission for unspecified research uses is a fundamental expression of respect for them as persons and should be done absent some compelling moral consideration to the contrary. We examine three moral considerations and argue that each of them fails: that there is a duty of easy rescue binding on all, that seeking consent creates a selection bias that undermines the validity of biospecimen research, and that seeking and documenting consent will be prohibitively expensive.
The Moral Organization of the Professions: Bioethics in the United States and France
In: Current sociology: journal of the International Sociological Association ISA, Band 57, Heft 4, S. 555-579
ISSN: 1461-7064
Bioethics is a relatively new endeavor, emerging as a discourse distinct from considerations of moral responsibility occurring within the professions of medicine and science. This article uses the `de-centered comparative method' to examine how the emergence and development of bioethics varies across different social and cultural settings. In particular, the article looks at bioethical work in the US and France, exploring these different manifestations of the movement toward external oversight of those working in medicine and the life sciences. Our comparative data demonstrate how pathways of professionalization are shaped by contingent cultural and historical factors. We contrast `demand' and `supply' theories of professionalization and suggest that the increasing prominence of the bioethical occupation is the result of both the professional desires of bioethicists and a concern for the public good.
Birthing Ethics: What Mothers, Families, Childbirth Educators, Nurses, and Physicians Should Know About the Ethics of Childbirth
This article discusses current ethical issues associated with childbirth in the United States. It provides a review of moral problems and ethical choices made by parents and health-care professionals during the prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. Ethical issues are identified and framed through a "naturalized bioethics" approach, as recommended by Margaret Walker and her colleagues, Hilde Lindemann and Marian Verkerk. This approach critiques traditional bioethics and gives attention to everyday ethics and the social, economic, and political context within which ethical problems exist. This approach provides the reader with the tools needed to critically assess the way ethical problems are defined and resolved.
BASE
Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and the Ethics of Ethnographic Research
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 595, Heft 1, S. 249-263
ISSN: 1552-3349
Ethnographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Compared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, and in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnographic research. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural and bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace their efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography.
Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and the Ethics of Ethnographic Research
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 595, S. 249-263
ISSN: 1552-3349
Ethnographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review hoards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Compared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, & in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnographic research. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural & bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace their efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography. 29 References. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2004 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]
Normative Dissonance in Science: Results from a National Survey of U.S. Scientists
In: Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE ; an international journal, Band 2, Heft 4, S. 3-14
ISSN: 1556-2654
Norms of behavior in scientific research represent ideals to which most scientists subscribe. Our analysis of the extent of dissonance between these widely espoused ideals and scientists' perceptions of their own and others' behavior is based on survey responses from 3,247 mid- and early-career scientists who had research funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. We found substantial normative dissonance, particularly between espoused ideals and respondents' perceptions of other scientists' typical behavior. Also, respondents on average saw other scientists' behavior as more counternormative than normative. Scientists' views of their fields as cooperative or competitive were associated with their normative perspectives, with competitive fields showing more counternormative behavior. The high levels of normative dissonance documented here represent a persistent source of stress in science.
Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research
In: Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE ; an international journal, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 43-50
ISSN: 1556-2654
Those concerned with protecting the integrity of science generally focus on the serious but rare infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). While the violations of FFP are clear threats to the quality of scientific work and public trust in science, are they the behaviors that researchers themselves find most troubling? Noticing that scientists seldom are asked to report their perceptions of the behaviors that pose problems for the enterprise of science, we conducted six focus groups with researchers from major research universities. A total of 51 scientists participated in our focus-group discussions, which lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours each. We found that while researchers were aware of the problems of FFP, in their eyes misconduct generally is associated with more mundane, everyday problems in the work environment. These more common problems fall into four categories: The meaning of data, the rules of science, life with colleagues, and the pressures of production in science. Focus on the "normal misbehaviors" that are part of the ordinary life of researchers allows us to see the way the organization of science generates both compliance and deviance from ethical norms.