Personhood Communication with Persons with Dementia: Concept Analysis

Purpose: This paper aimed to clarify the meaning of personhood communication with persons with dementia, by identifying its attributes.Methods: Walker and Avant’s concept analysis method was employed. A literature review was performed using salient medical and health databases such as PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL between 1988 to June 2020. The literature review employed keywords such as “personhood”, “communication”, and “dementia”.Results: Personhood communication with persons with dementia is defined as providing social interaction based on their residual capacities, with adjustments being made in light of their remaining communication abilities, attentiveness to their emotions and respect for their individuality being shown, and decision-making rights being maintained.Conclusion: At the core of personhood communication is respect for persons with dementia and the goal of enabling them to be valid members of society. Further research is needed on the development of educational programs that impart the attributes of personhood communication with persons with dementia.

The Expressive Value of Prosecuting Aged Defendants: A Rebuke of Ageism

A common normative justification for criminal trials is their expressive value. The prosecution of aged defendants, especially those with deteriorating health, seemingly presents new expressive challenges, where the value of judging and punishing past wrongs seems to conflict with sympathies for the elderly, the seeming futility of prosecuting individuals who are unlikely to serve much of a sentence if convicted, and the seeming cruelty of putting the frail/ill through lengthy and taxing trials. Drawing from philosophical literature on respect for persons and the morality of aged-based differential treatment, this paper argues that deciding not to prosecute would be a communicative disservice to the old—defendants, living victims and those left behind, and other aged individuals within a society—by treating the aged as less agentic or as if their past lives and past actions, admirable or detestable, should no longer be associated with them, nor praised or condemned.

The reasons of the unreasonable: Is political liberalism still an option?

In this study, we claim that political liberalism, despite harsh criticism, is still the best option available for providing a just and stable society. However, we maintain that political liberalism needs to be revised so as to be justifiable from the perspective of not only the “reasonable” in a Rawlsian sense (that we define as “fully” reasonable) but also the ones whom Rawls labels as “unreasonable.” To support our claim, going beyond Rawls’s original account, we unpack the concept of unreasonableness and identify three different subsets that we label as the “partially reasonable,” the “non-reasonable,” and the “unreasonable.” We argue that both the “fully” reasonable and the “partially reasonable” would be included into the constituency of public justification; more specifically, we claim that the latter would support liberal institutions out of their reasons: we define these reasons as mutually intelligible reasons and claim that they allow to acknowledge the importance of a convergence approach to public justification. As for the “non-reasonable” and “unreasonable,” we claim that they cannot be included in the constituency of public justification, but they nonetheless could be compliant with liberal institutions if political liberalism offers them some reasons to comply: here, we claim that political liberalism should include them through engagement and propose reasoning from conjecture as an effecting way of offering reasons for compliance. In particular, we claim that through reasoning from conjecture, the “non-reasonable” could find conciliatory reasons to comply with liberal institutions on a stable base. With regard to the “unreasonable” in the strict sense, we claim that through reasoning from conjecture, their unreasonableness could be contained and they could find reasons—even if just self-interested—for complying with liberal institutions rather than defying them. In our discussion, we consider the different subsets not as “frozen” but as dynamic and open to change, and we aim to propose a more complex and multilayered approach to inclusion that would be able to include a wider set of people. To strengthen our argument, we show that the need for a wider public justification and for broader inclusion in liberal societies is grounded in respect for persons both as equal persons and as particular individuals. In particular, we claim that individuals’ values, ends, commitments, and affiliations activate demands of respect and can strengthen the commitment to the liberal–democratic order. Through a reformulation of the role of respect in liberal societies, we also show a kind of social and communitarian dimension that, we claim, is fully compatible with political liberalism and opens it up to “civic friendship” and “social solidarity,” which are constitutive elements for the development of a sense of justice and for the realization of a just and stable society.

‘Respect’ and ‘justice’ for whom? Culturally irresponsive ethical practices with refugee communities

This article explores how two common social work ethical principles, respect for persons and justice, are understood by refugee young people aged 18–30 years old in Kenya. Through 31 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with refugee young people who had previously participated in academic and/or organization-based qualitative research, this article explores how this group conceptualizes research ethics. The analysis suggests that refugee young people in Kenya did not necessarily feel that researchers were respectful. As such, the article claims that researchers must reconsider how Eurocentric social work and research ethics codes are understood globally.

Protecting nurse survey participants: Ethical considerations for conducting survey research among nurses

The nurse perspective is critical in survey research investigating various aspects of healthcare services, staff, and patient outcomes. Researchers are responsible for ensuring that survey research utilizing survey questionnaires employs research methodological strategies that are aligned with the ethical principles of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. The purpose of this paper is to discuss best practices to facilitate high-quality survey data collection for nurse survey participants. Recommendations are based on the fundamental ethical principles described in the Belmont Report, an overview of evidence published in the current literature, and the application of practical knowledge. Literature searches conducted in PubMed resulted in the inclusion of over 50 articles from a wide range of disciplines. The results include actionable methods for researchers to consider and follow when conducting survey research utilizing nurse participants. This article serves as a resource to guide researchers through ethically responsible design, implementation, and reporting of nurse survey research.

From principles to practice: methods to increase the transparency of research ethics in violent contexts

There has been a proliferation of research with human participants in violent contexts over the past ten years. Adhering to commonly held ethical principles such as beneficence, justice, and respect for persons is particularly important and challenging in research on violence. This letter argues that practices around research ethics in violent contexts should be reported more transparently in research outputs, and should be seen as a subset of research methods. We offer practical suggestions and empirical evidence from both within and outside of political science around risk assessments, mitigating the risk of distress and negative psychological outcomes, informed consent, and monitoring the incidence of potential harms. An analysis of published research on violence involving human participants from 2008 to 2019 shows that only a small proportion of current publications include any mention of these important dimensions of research ethics.

Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication

The open science (OS) movement has advocated for increased transparency in certain aspects of research. Communication is taking its first steps toward OS as some journals have adopted OS guidelines codified by another discipline. We find this pursuit troubling as OS prioritizes openness while insufficiently addressing essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Some recommended open science practices increase the potential for harm for marginalized participants, communities, and researchers. We elaborate how OS can serve a marginalizing force within academia and the research community, as it overlooks the needs of marginalized scholars and excludes some forms of scholarship. We challenge the current instantiation of OS and propose a divergent agenda for the future of Communication research centered on ethical, inclusive research practices.

Respect for Persons and Public Justification

Gerald Gaus argues that respect for persons is not an independent ground for requiring that social morality must be publicly justified. Instead, respect is built into the structure of social morality, because social morality involves recognizing one another as sources of a moral summons to follow rules. So mutual respect for persons is a social achievement, not a requirement underlying morality. The authority of rules of social morality derives from this structural nature of social morality. But because one may face a gap between one’s individual moral reasoning and social morality, no particular rule of social morality, including rules about whether coercion is justified, necessarily overrides one’s own moral conclusions.