scholarly journals Identifying and addressing nonrational processes in REB ethical decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 174701612199401
Author(s):  
Simon Nuttgens

Ethical decision-making is inherent to the research ethics committee (REC) deliberation process. While ethical codes, regulations, and research standards are indispensable in guiding this process, decision-making is nonetheless susceptible to nonrational factors that can undermined the quality, consistency, and perceived fairness REC decisions. In this paper I identify biases and heuristics (i.e., nonrational factors) that are known to influence the reasoning processes among the general population and various professions alike. I suggest that such factors will inevitably arise within the REC review process. To help mitigate this potential, I propose an interventive questioning process that can be used by RECs to identify and minimize the influence of the nonrational factors most likely to impact REC judgment and decision-making.

1999 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Storl ◽  
Brenda DuBois ◽  
Julie Seline

Case managers have never before faced the multitude of difficult ethical dilemmas that now confront them daily. Legal, medical, social, and ethical considerations often fly in the face of previously reliable intuitions. The importance and urgency of facing these dilemmas head-on has resulted in clear calls for action. What are the appropriate legal, ethical, and professional parameters for effective decision making? Are normatively sensitive, but also practically sensible protocols possible? In an effort to address these concerns, Alternatives for the Older Adult, Inc., Rock Island, Illinois established an ethics committee to look into possible means of resolving or dissolving commonly occurring dilemmas. As a result of year-long deliberations, the committee formulated a decision-making strategy whose central apparatus is the decision tree—a flowchart of reasonable decisions and their consequent implications. In this article, we explore the development of this approach as well as the theory that underlies it.


1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erich H. Loewy

Erhics committees and ethics consultants are becoming more involved in helping individuals make decisions and in advising institutions and legislatures about drafting policy. The role of these committees and consultants has been acknowledged in law, and their function is generally considered salutory and helpful. Ethics consultants and committees, furthermore, play a critical role in educating students and members of the hospital community and the public at large. More over, many ethicists engage in scholarky activities to expand the boundaries of our understanding and, in turn, facilitate our capacity for helping. The role of the ethicist and of the ethics committee is thus manifold. Ethics committees and ethics consultants somehow “in competition” is a mistaken notion: when ethics committees, ethics consultants, and the community work smoothly together, much good can be accomplished.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin L. Price ◽  
Margaret E. Lee ◽  
Gia A. Washington ◽  
Mary L. Brandt

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Gottlieb ◽  
◽  
Jack R. Sibley

Author(s):  
Vykinta Kligyte ◽  
Shane Connelly ◽  
Chase E. Thiel ◽  
Lynn D. Devenport ◽  
Ryan P. Brown ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document