Public Perceptions on the Procedural Values and Proposed Outcomes of the Finnish Climate Change Act Amendment

This article examines the public perceptions on the drafting process of Finnish Climate Act amendment, which is a legislation on the climate policy that aims to mitigate climate change and secure adaptive capacity. In this paper we present results of a thematic analysis, which reveals citizens' perceptions of the procedural values, with respect to transparency, participation, and acceptance, and the objectives of the amendment, such as the climate neutrality target for 2035. The research data consisted of 2,458 answers to a citizen survey on the Finnish Climate Change Act amendment. Our results reveal that the opinions of citizens ranged from highlighting the urgency of political action to climate denials, with varying perceptions on process and proposed outcomes. While over half of citizens felt positively about the 2035 climate neutrality target created in the Climate Change Amendment Act, only a third believed that there was appropriate opportunity for public participation in the amendment process. Based on these findings, we suggest that participatory and transparent processes in legislative drafting are prerequisites for the sustainability transition and the implementation of international climate mitigation targets.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues.Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords “coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy.” We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories.Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development.Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.

The role of empathy in ethics of radiological protection

Radiological protection is often considered a matter of scientific and technological facts only, not of value judgements. This perception is now gradually changing, especially with ICRP Publication 138, which addressed the ethical foundation of the system of radiological protection. It identified values which have guided the Commission’s recommendations over the decades, but have not always been made explicit. Four core values are discussed (beneficence/non-maleficence, prudence, justice, dignity) as well as three procedural values (accountability, transparency, inclusivity). The latter are considered critical to the practical implementation of the system of radiological protection. Here we are exploring empathy as a procedural values complementing the three identified in ICRP Publication 138. Empathy can be defined as the “capability (or disposition) to immerse oneself in and to reflect upon the experiences, perspectives and contexts of others”. It is often understood as a skill that one either has or has not, but research has shown it can be taught and therefore can be required as an attitude of those working in health care, education, design, and technology. We suggest it is an essential prerequisite to the assessment and management of any radiological situation and the health problems accruing from it. The concerns of people affected, their needs and wishes need to be taken seriously from the very beginning of any decision-making process. Even if they are considered unfounded and exaggerated, the insights they provide will be valuable for the understanding of the overall situation. Without empathy, our practice of beneficence and non-maleficence as well as solidarity would be oddly limited.

Ethical Guidance for Hard Decisions: A Critical Review of Early International COVID-19 ICU Triage Guidelines

This article provides a critical comparative analysis of the substantive and procedural values and ethical concepts articulated in guidelines for allocating scarce resources in the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified 21 local and national guidelines written in English, Spanish, German and French; applicable to specific and identifiable jurisdictions; and providing guidance to clinicians for decision making when allocating critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. US guidelines were not included, as these had recently been reviewed elsewhere. Information was extracted from each guideline on: 1) the development process; 2) the presence and nature of ethical, medical and social criteria for allocating critical care resources; and 3) the membership of and decision-making procedure of any triage committees. Results of our analysis show the majority appealed primarily to consequentialist reasoning in making allocation decisions, tempered by a largely pluralistic approach to other substantive and procedural values and ethical concepts. Medical and social criteria included medical need, co-morbidities, prognosis, age, disability and other factors, with a focus on seemingly objective medical criteria. There was little or no guidance on how to reconcile competing criteria, and little attention to internal contradictions within individual guidelines. Our analysis reveals the challenges in developing sound ethical guidance for allocating scarce medical resources, highlighting problems in operationalising ethical concepts and principles, divergence between guidelines, unresolved contradictions within the same guideline, and use of naïve objectivism in employing widely used medical criteria for allocating ICU resources.

From General Principles to Procedural Values: Responsible Digital Health Meets Public Health Ethics

Most existing work in digital ethics is modeled on the “principlist” approach to medical ethics, seeking to articulate a small set of general principles to guide ethical decision-making. Critics have highlighted several limitations of such principles, including (1) that they mask ethical disagreements between and within stakeholder communities, and (2) that they provide little guidance for how to resolve trade-offs between different values. This paper argues that efforts to develop responsible digital health practices could benefit from paying closer attention to a different branch of medical ethics, namely public health ethics. In particular, I argue that the influential “accountability for reasonableness” (A4R) approach to public health ethics can help overcome some of the limitations of existing digital ethics principles. A4R seeks to resolve trade-offs through decision-procedures designed according to certain shared procedural values. This allows stakeholders to recognize decisions reached through these procedures as legitimate, despite their underlying disagreements. I discuss the prospects for adapting A4R to the context of responsible digital health and suggest questions for further research.

KITAKIWI MASINAHIKANAN (OUR MAP)

Members of Nibinamik First Nation, an Anishinaabe community in the Far North of Ontario, are in the process of updating their land use plan. As part of this land use planning project, Nibinamik seeks an accompanying and informing map of their traditional territory. Through a partnership between Nibinamik and Ryerson University, we explored the substantive and procedural values informing the mapping, and by extension the land use planning, project. The findings are discussed in relation to the literature on Indigenous counter-mapping and in reference to the guiding provincial policy framework. Importantly, Nibinamik seeks an alternate process to that imposed by the province, while simultaneously seeking recognition by the province. In this way, Nibinamik resists the province’s claims to exclusive power over crown lands, and asserts claims to shared power over traditional territory. Key words: counter-mapping; Indigenous Planning; northern Ontario

KITAKIWI MASINAHIKANAN (OUR MAP)

Members of Nibinamik First Nation, an Anishinaabe community in the Far North of Ontario, are in the process of updating their land use plan. As part of this land use planning project, Nibinamik seeks an accompanying and informing map of their traditional territory. Through a partnership between Nibinamik and Ryerson University, we explored the substantive and procedural values informing the mapping, and by extension the land use planning, project. The findings are discussed in relation to the literature on Indigenous counter-mapping and in reference to the guiding provincial policy framework. Importantly, Nibinamik seeks an alternate process to that imposed by the province, while simultaneously seeking recognition by the province. In this way, Nibinamik resists the province’s claims to exclusive power over crown lands, and asserts claims to shared power over traditional territory. Key words: counter-mapping; Indigenous Planning; northern Ontario

Partisan Context and Procedural Values: Attitudes Towards Presidential Secrecy Before and after the 2016 US Election

What shapes attitudes towards procedural rules that constrain executive power? This letter argues that procedural values are contextual: A function of who is in power. Supporters of those in power prefer fewer procedural constraints, while opposition supporters prefer greater. This study reports the results of a unique test using data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Respondents were asked, in both pre- and post-election waves, if they thought it should be ‘easier or harder for the president to keep documents secret from the public’. The panel design makes it possible to track individual changes following the shift in political context. The results show evidence of a partisan ‘flip’ in attitudes following the election, with Republicans becoming less likely – and Democrats more likely – to prefer additional constraints on presidential secrecy. However, this partisan ‘flip’ is present only among higher political knowledge respondents.

Procedural Implementation and Axiomatization of the Weighted Nonseparable Cost Value

The paper defines a new value called the weighted nonseparable cost value (weighted-NSC value), which divides the nonseparable cost on the ground of an exogenous attached weight and compromises egalitarianism and utilitarianism of a value flexibly. First, we construct an optimization model to minimize the deweighted variance of complaint and define its optimal solution to be the weighted-NSC value. Second, a process is set up to acquire the weighted-NSC value, which enlarges the traditional procedural values. In the process, one player’s marginal contribution is divided up by all participants rather than merely restricted within his precursors. Lastly, adopting the weight in defining a value destructs the classical symmetry. This promotes the definition of ω-symmetry for the grand-marginal normalized game to defend against the effect of weight and axiomatically sculptures the weighted-NSC value. Dual dummifying player property is also applied to characterize the new defined value.

Perspectives on Adversarial and Inquisitorial Criminal Procedure

Analyzing the evolving nature of core features of adversarial and inquisitorial processes in an applied and dynamic way, this chapter examines the two traditions through a variety of lenses and contexts. Beginning with the organizing principles of both traditions, it examines how jurisdictions have adapted their procedures with the common ambition of avoiding a contested trial. Adopting an external standpoint, it then analyzes the adversarial tradition’s association with individual rights, fairness, and transparency, and its resulting appeal to systems seeking to move away from a more state-dominated process. It then examines the ways that different procedural values play out within the context of international criminal justice, concluding with an analysis of contemporary pan-European influences on criminal procedure and the challenges in developing common criminal justice values and standards of fair trial through the ECtHR and the EU that often run counter to domestic trends.