‘God helps those who help themselves’… religion and Assisted Reproductive Technology usage amongst urban Ghanaians

Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) is increasingly becoming a viable option for infertile couples in Ghana. There exists significant literature that explores the gender, legal, religious and socio-cultural implications of ART usage. In this paper, we expand the discourse on the nexus between religion and ART usage by looking at how the former is used as a frame of reference in the decision-making process, as well as how it is employed to explain treatment successes and failures. Irrespective of religious orientation, there was a general acceptance of ART by participants in the study-with exceptions only when it came to some aspects of the procedure. Even here, participants’ desperate desire to have children, tended to engender some accommodation of procedures they were uncomfortable with because of their religious beliefs. Thus, in contrast to some studies that suggest religion as interfering with ART use, we posit that religion is not an inhibiting factor to ART usage. On the contrary, it is an enabling factor, engendering the agentic attitude of participants to find a solution to their infertility in ART; as well as providing the strength to endure the physical and emotional discomfort associated with the biomedical process of conception and childbirth. In this context, religion thus provides participants with a frame of reference to navigate the spaces between decision-making, treatment processes and outcomes, and attributions of responsibility for the outcomes whatever they may be.

Distributed responsibility in human–machine interactions

Artificial agents have become increasingly prevalent in human social life. In light of the diversity of new human–machine interactions, we face renewed questions about the distribution of moral responsibility. Besides positions denying the mere possibility of attributing moral responsibility to artificial systems, recent approaches discuss the circumstances under which artificial agents may qualify as moral agents. This paper revisits the discussion of how responsibility might be distributed between artificial agents and human interaction partners (including producers of artificial agents) and raises the question of whether attributions of responsibility should remain entirely on the human side. While acknowledging a crucial difference between living human beings and artificial systems culminating in an asymmetric feature of human–machine interactions, this paper investigates the extent to which artificial agents may reasonably be attributed a share of moral responsibility. To elaborate on criteria that can justify a distribution of responsibility in certain human–machine interactions, the role of types of criteria (interaction-related criteria and criteria that can be deferred from socially constructed responsibility relationships) is examined. Thereby, the focus will lay on the evaluation of potential criteria referring to the fact that artificial agents surpass in some aspects the capacities of humans. This is contrasted with socially constructed responsibility relationships that do not take these criteria into account. In summary, situations are examined in which it seems plausible that moral responsibility can be distributed between artificial and human agents.

Social Roles and Organizational Culture: Attributions of Responsibility and Punitiveness for Financial Crime

A white-collar offender’s role and the organizational culture in which the crime occurs affects subjective evaluations of offender culpability. However, how they affect responsibility attributions and punitiveness is unclear. We examine attribution processes by conducting a factorial experiment to test a proposed model. We test attribution theory derived predictions using innovative methods of scale creation and nonparametric analyses. Participants attribute more responsibility and are more punitive of individuals and offenders in organizational cultures where illegality is atypical. Our five proposed dimensions of responsibility are predictive of responsibility attributions, and path analysis shows offender role and offense environment affect how the five dimensions of responsibility affect attributions. Our findings have implications for criminal justice and adjudication processes and corporate regulation.

Disclaiming Responsibility, Voicing Disagreements, and Negotiating Boundaries

This chapter introduces the novel category of ‘disclaimers’—distinctive normative acts which challenge third-party attributions of responsibility in a community governed by norms of mutual accountability. While the debate focuses on evasive and wrongful refusals to take responsibility for one’s wrongs, this chapter argues that disclaimers are fundamental modes of exercising normative powers, whose main functions are demanding recognition, responding to wrongs, voicing disagreement, exiting alienating conditions, and calling for a fair redistribution of specific responsibilities. In particular, understood as disclaimers, denials of responsibility are shown to be key modes of ethical and political empowerment, which play a significant role in producing normative changes and directing societal transformations.

The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Food Consumers' Awareness of Antimicrobial Resistance, OneHealth, and Animal Welfare Information on Food Labels

Covid-19 is a OneHealth crisis with far-reaching and unexpected impacts on many aspects of society. Previous OneHealth issues, such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), have not received a similar level of attention or action from the public despite representing significant public health and economic threats to society. The current study aimed to explore whether the Covid-19 pandemic may act as a catalyst to increase public awareness related to OneHealth issues, in particular, AMR. This short paper presents overview findings from a survey carried out in September 2020 with a representative sample of food consumers on the island of Ireland (n = 972). The survey revealed Covid-19 had increased awareness of AMR amongst 47% of respondents; increased awareness of connected animal and human health amongst 43% of respondents; and increased awareness of animal welfare information on food labels amongst 34% of respondents. A cluster analysis revealed five distinct consumer segments impacted differently by Covid-19. These segments differed in their levels of objective and subjective knowledge of antibiotic use practises in farming, AMR risk perception, and attributions of responsibility for action on AMR. Findings are discussed with respect to future efforts by the agri-food sector to communicate with the public about AMR and responsible antibiotic use in farming, with particular emphasis on the implications for strategies that incorporate front-of-pack labelling.

Introduction

The Introduction identifies eight complexities associated with asking and telling. Four domains that intersect with asking and telling activities are further elaborated: knowledge claims and assumptions (epistemics); asking and telling’s place in sequences of action and within interactional projects; attributions of responsibility for praiseworthy or blameworthy attributes, actions, or outcomes; and moral judgments regarding actions. In addition, the Introduction characterizes the early years of Conversation Analysis, highlights aspects of Pomerantz’s approach to conversation analysis, explains the order of the papers within the book, and provides brief descriptions of the papers.

Attributions of Responsibility: Blamings

In reporting an “unhappy event,” a speaker identifies an unwanted outcome without indicating what or who is responsible for the outcome. While this type of report appears to be an informing, it is used to elicit the recipient’s account if offered to a recipient who is implicated in, and possibly responsible for, the unwanted outcome. The report provides the recipient with the opportunity to volunteer an account that relates to their responsibility for the unwanted outcome. It functions as an alternative to directly accusing the recipient. The practice relies on the participants’ orientation to a sequence of actions. The report of the unwanted outcome is a sequence initial action. A relevant next action is for the recipient to offer a version of their actions and motives that speak to their responsibility for the outcome.

The Impact of College Men’s Sexual Coercion Perpetration on Proclivity toward Sexual Assault and Their Cognitive and Emotional Reactions

Sexual coercion is one of the most frequent manifestations of sexual aggression that occurs within intimate relationships. The current research examined the role of previous perpetration of sexual coercion toward an intimate partner on men’s proclivity toward partner sexual assault and their cognitive and emotional reactions to a sexual assault scenario. Male college students with (n = 45) and without (n = 52) self-reported previous sexual coercion perpetration watched a video clip showing an unwanted sexual interaction that included verbal and physical tactics used by the perpetrator, and they indicated the point at which they would stop acting like the man (response latency), their degree of identification with the perpetrator, their attributions of responsibility to victim and perpetrator, and their emotional state. Results indicated that prior sexual coercion perpetrators scored higher on sexual assault proclivity and reported lower responsibility attributed to the perpetrator than did nonperpetrators. No differences were found in attributed victim’s responsibility and emotional reactions. Furthermore, the increase in severity of the sexual aggression situation resulted in lower identification with the man, higher responsibility toward him, and more negative emotions in general. Findings could have implications for both the assessment of individual risk of future sexual assault and primary prevention efforts.