A code of ethics proposal for Palestinians’ educators: attitudes and themes

Abstract The modern clinician is a research consumer. Rehabilitation of oropharyngeal impairments, and prevention of the adverse outcomes of dysphagia, requires the clinician to select interventions for which evidence of a reasonable likelihood of a successful, important outcome exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide strategies for evaluation of published research regarding treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia. This article utilizes tutorial and examples to inform and educate practitioners in methods of appraising published research. It provides and encourages the use of methods of efficiently evaluating the validity and clinical importance of published research. Additionally, it discusses the importance of the ethical obligation we, as practitioners, have to use evidence-based treatment selection methods and measurement of patient performance during therapy. The reader is provided with tactics for evaluating treatment studies to establish a study's validity and, thereby, objectively select interventions. The importance of avoiding subjective or unsubstantiated claims and using objective methods of generating empirical clinical evidence is emphasized. The ability to evaluate the quality of research provides clinicians with objective intervention selection as an important, essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. ASHA Code of Ethics (2003): Principle I, Rule F: “Individuals shall fully inform the persons they serve of the nature and possible effects of services rendered and products dispensed…” (p. 2) Principle I, Rule G: “Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.” (p. 2) Principle IV, Rule G: “Individuals shall not provide professional services without exercising independent professional judgment, regardless of referral source or prescription.” (p. 4)

Download Full-text

Awareness and Decision Making in Professional Ethics

European Psychologist ◽

10.1027//1016-9040.5.1.19 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 19-27 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ronny Swain

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Professional Ethics ◽

Ethical Decision Making ◽

Code Of Ethics ◽

Professional Autonomy ◽

Ethical Awareness ◽

Ethical Decisions ◽

The Right ◽

Aid Decision

The paper describes the development of the 1998 revision of the Psychological Society of Ireland's Code of Professional Ethics. The Code incorporates the European Meta-Code of Ethics and an ethical decision-making procedure borrowed from the Canadian Psychological Association. An example using the procedure is presented. To aid decision making, a classification of different kinds of stakeholder (i.e., interested party) affected by ethical decisions is offered. The author contends (1) that psychologists should assert the right, which is an important aspect of professional autonomy, to make discretionary judgments, (2) that to be justified in doing so they need to educate themselves in sound and deliberative judgment, and (3) that the process is facilitated by a code such as the Irish one, which emphasizes ethical awareness and decision making. The need for awareness and judgment is underlined by the variability in the ethical codes of different organizations and different European states: in such a context, codes should be used as broad yardsticks, rather than precise templates.

Download Full-text