Scribd
Upload
140 views6 pages

Lesson 1 Ethical Reasoning: Reason and Impartiality Are Not Absolute To Any Particular Group of People

The document discusses several concepts related to ethical reasoning and decision making. It defines reason, impartiality, and morality. It states that while morality may apply generally to a group, reason and impartiality are more individualized. It then provides more details on reason, impartiality, and the role of predicting consequences in moral reasoning. It introduces the principles of beneficence and discusses how they are applied in healthcare. It outlines two models for ethical decision making - a 7 step guide by Michael Davis and Shaun Taylor's model which involves considering the context, stakeholders, decision makers, alternative choices, and impacts to lead to an optimal choice.

Uploaded by

Mae Abigail Mallonga Bunagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
140 views6 pages

Lesson 1 Ethical Reasoning: Reason and Impartiality Are Not Absolute To Any Particular Group of People

The document discusses several concepts related to ethical reasoning and decision making. It defines reason, impartiality, and morality. It states that while morality may apply generally to a group, reason and impartiality are more individualized. It then provides more details on reason, impartiality, and the role of predicting consequences in moral reasoning. It introduces the principles of beneficence and discusses how they are applied in healthcare. It outlines two models for ethical decision making - a 7 step guide by Michael Davis and Shaun Taylor's model which involves considering the context, stakeholders, decision makers, alternative choices, and impacts to lead to an optimal choice.

Uploaded by

Mae Abigail Mallonga Bunagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

LESSON 1; ETHICAL REASONING

Reason and impartiality are not absolute to any particular group of people,


while morality is absolute. Whatever is considered wrong morally within a
certain group of people cannot be debated through reason. Morality decides
the outcome first and then employs reason to justify it. For impartiality,
fairness is given more importance where people are supposed to be treated
equally before the law. While morality may apply generally to a particular
group of people, the same cannot be said of reason and impartiality because
the two take a more individualized moral perception.

REASON – is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing
and verifying facts, applying logic and changing or justifying practices,
institutions and beliefs based on new or existing information (Kompridis,
2000).

          Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition and intellect. Reason is


a declaration made to explain or justify action, decision or conviction.

          The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two


kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others – that warrant our
praise and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others – and thus
warrant our criticism. Developing one’s ethical reasoning abilities is crucial
because there is in human nature a string tendency toward egotism, prejudice,
self-justification and self-deception Reasons have everything to do with ethics:
If you have no good reasons for an act or a belief, then you can’t have
thought it through very well and maybe you shouldn’t be doing it or believing
it at all. It’s quite scary to think that there are people out there who are voting,
protesting, financing causes or running campaigns without any clear idea of
why they are doing it. Each and every one of us should be clear about our
reasons for our values, beliefs and behaviors and we should be able to give a
reasoned account of them to others.

IMPARTIALITY – also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a


principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective
criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice or preferring the benefit to
one person over another for improper reasons.

          Impartiality makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious


beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavors to relieve the suffering of
individuals, being guided solely by their needs and to give priority to the most
urgent cases of distress.

PREDICTING CONSEQUENCES

 Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of an action before we


act. There are always consequences when we take the action, we think is right
and when we try to be good persons and usually these include unintended
and intended outcomes.

  We must remember however that before we act, we can never know for
certain what the consequences will be. Therefore, we should take care in
predicting what will result from acting on ethical presumption. In doing ethics,
we look at rules (duties and rights) and at stories (character and relationships)
to construct a presumption and then test this presumption by predicting what
we do know and don’t know about likely consequences of acting on it.

Lesson 2 Principle of Beneficence

There is much written over the centuries by philosophers on this ethic because
of its great power and potential for distributive justice and the greater good.

In the health care milieu, modern thought on beneficence embraces


humanism. All persons have immutable rights to life and liberty, and these
rights are to be respected, nurtured, and facilitated. Reverence toward the
patient and his or her suffering experience shows respect for the individual
and for life itself. Practitioners are to act in a way that contributes to the
patient's health and well-being and to take care to refrain from doing
anything that would cause harm. Beneficence strives for the best care while
embracing not doing anything harmful.

In health care, no malfeasance is embodied in the principle of primum non


nocere and is found in the Hippocratic Oath as “physician—do no harm.”
Some patients' problems have solutions that may not be worth pursuing when
the risk-benefit ratio is considered. Autonomy, veracity, beneficence, and no
malfeasance all apply to this type of decision making.

Beneficence has always been an integral part of biomedical ethics along with
other fundamental ethical tenets including autonomy, justice, and
confidentiality. Of these, there can be a struggle to balance the rights of the
patient to choose and the beneficent intent of the caregiver. People engaged
in health care, health research, and public health is to appreciate that potential
risks must be weighed against the benefits of care and that the other party be
an informed and willing participant. All health care practitioners take an oath
on graduation before beginning their clinical work as professionals. The oath
explicitly states, among many other obligations, the pursuit of good, the
avoidance of things harmful, and embraces the ethic of beneficence
proactively. This has been described as producing net benefit over harm,
which is to be sought after in all aspects of the clinical encounter.

Lesson 3: Step Guide to Ethical Decision


Lesson 3: Step Guide to Ethical Decision

THE SEVEN (7) STEP GUIDES TO ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND


MORAL REASONING

          It stands that in making moral decisions, it helps if one follows a distinct
guideline. According to American philosopher Michael Davis (1999) who came
up with this seven-step guide, professionals and students alike exhibit
stronger “moral reasoning skills” if they base their actions and/or decisions on
a codified list. What is unique about Davis’ model is his emphasis on multiple
alternatives in dealing with ethical dilemmas. The steps are as follows:

1.    State the problem – Determine the possible moral dilemmas at hand. Is


there something about your judgment and/or decision that make you
uncomfortable? Is there any conflict of interest present?

2.    Check the facts – When we examine a scenario closely, what is initially


identified as a problem or dilemma can surprisingly disappear. Some, on the
other hand, can be amplified or altered radically due to new details that might
come to the light upon closer scrutiny.

3.    Identify relevant factors – Who are the people involved? What laws or
professional codes can possibly apply? Are there practical constraints? (For
example: You are a journalist ad you were given 5000 php by a politician
whom the article you are currently writing is about. Will the money create
conflict of interest?)

4.    Develop a list of options – Do you have a set of alternatives to the


action or decision (in relation to a given scenario) in mind? Be creative and
develop a list of other choices. Avoid the binarism of “yes/no” questions in
making moral decisions (such as “Should I do it or not?”). Identify people you
can potentially approach who may provide fresh perspectives on the situation
you are confronted with.

5.    Test the options – Michael Davis has included several test that may prove
to be useful where one is weighing in on his/her choices and decisions:

a.    Harm Test – Would less harm be done on other people when I favour this
one decision over the others?

b.    Publicity Test – Would I be proud of this decision if it makes the evening


news? Would I want my loved ones to know?

c.     Defensibility Test – Would I be able to defend this decision before the


court or a panel of reviewers without appearing self-serving?

d.    Reversibility Test – Would I still prefer my option of choice if it were to


have some adverse effects on me instead of others? Would I still want it
despite the implications?

e.    Colleague Test – How would my profession’s ethics committee see the


option? What would they say?

f.     Organization Test – What would my company’s (or organization) ethics


officials and/or legal counsel say regarding the option?

g.    Virtue Test – What kind of person would also choose such an option? Is
he/she who someone might consider as “virtuous”? What would I become of
me if I enact this option all the time?

6.    Come with a choice or decision based on the abovementioned steps.

7.    Review Steps 1-6 - What can you do to prevent making such a decision
again? Are there precautions to take? What changes should be affected on an
organizational and personal level (such as reviewing policy or being a more
discerning employee, among others)? Would it be possible to get more
support next time?
Lesson 4: Ethical Decision-Making Model - Shaun
Taylor Model
Lesson 4: Ethical Decision-Making Model - Shaun Taylor Model

Shaun Taylor's presentation: Geo-ethics Forums given at the 2014 Teaching


Geo-Ethics workshop, provided a simple model to help students engage
Ethical Decision-Making that includes

a) The context/facts of the situation

b) The stakeholders

c) The decision-makers

d) These inform a number of alternate choices

e) That is mediated through the evaluation of impacts and negotiations


among the parties, that lead to

f) Selection of an optimal choice.

Taylor provides guidance for what makes a good ethical dilemma discussion,
including:

o   Trust, respect, disagreement without personal attacks

o   Being judgmental vs. making a judgment

o   Emphasize process vs. conclusion

o   Uncertainty is OK

o   Description then prescription

You might also like