HVM

Rights-based theory

-A right is a morally or legally justified claim on someone else. One of the most important aspect in any situation is the rights of persons present in the situation. -An act is right only if it upholds rights

Absolutism

-Assumes an unquestioning acceptance of the principles that it recognizes -assumes principles or guides for action and uses these principles to solve moral problems. All ethical theories must presuppose a concern for the kinds of principles this system espouses.

Three features of profession

1. training that is intellectual and involves knowledge 2. work pursued primarily for others and not for oneself 3. success measured by more than the amount of financial return

Bioethics

A broad study of moral values, judgments, inquiries and debates in the context of biotechnology, science, medicine, law, public policy, theology, philosophy, and sociology.

Categorical imperative

A categorical imperative prescribes what we ought to do without reference to any consequences. -Act only according to the maxim whereby the will becomes a universal law (maxim=rule or subjective principle of action

Duty-based theory

A duty theorist may take action or do nothing; he or she is not bound to a particular conclusion. -The rightness and wrongness of an action does not depend on whether it produces bad or good consequences, e.g., keeping promises, not lying. -One type of duty-based theory is Kantian Deontology

Fallacy of relevance

A fallacy of relevance is when an arguer offers reasons that are logically irrelevant to the conclusions despite the fact that some of these arguments appear to be relevant or logical.

Moral theories

A moral theory is a perspective on moral situations - how values are acted out in the world. -Moral theories interpret our underlying values. Values may include responsibility, compassion, beneficence, nonmaleficence, responsibility, etc.

Professionalism

A set of values, attitudes, and behaviors that result in serving the interests of patients and society before one's own interests

Logically irrelevant

A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it counts neither for nor against that statement. For example, the earth revolves around the sun. Therefore, marijuana should be legalized.

Negatively relevant

A statement is negatively relevant when it counts against other statements. For example: John is 3 years old, so he is probably a microbiologist. The premise, if true, provides some reason for thinking the conclusion is false.

Positively relevant

A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it counts in favor of that statement. That is, the premise does provide some evidence for the conclusion, and hence is positively relevant to it. (some reason for thinking the conclusion is true)(e.g., Chris is a woman. Therefore, Chris enjoys knitting). Keep in mind this is not about agreeing with the statement - we are just focusing on the structure of arguments and the relevance of premises and conclusions.

Consequentialism

An act is right only if it tends to produce more good consequences than bad consequences for everyone concerned.

Intrinsic value

An end in and of itself, based on the belief that the person is inseparable from his/her body

Red herring

Another popular fallacy, the red herring is committed when an arguer tries to sidetrack others by raising irrelevant issues and then claims that the original issue has been fully argued and supported. For example: "Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being an owner of slaves. But Jefferson was one of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence is one of the most eloquent pleas for freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly, these criticisms are unwarranted." The issue in this excerpt is about Jefferson owning slaves and yet the author distracts the audience by focusing on whether he was a great president or whether he deserves credit for writing the Declaration of Independence.

Proprietary privacy

Appropriation and ownership of interests in human personality e.g blood sample or tissues

Excellence

Conscientious effort to exceed ordinary expectations Commitment to life-long learning

Goal-based theory

Consequentialism: the view that the rightness and wrongness of an action depends on its consequences. -A consequentialist would make a decision based on his or her assessment of the possible outcomes/ options. -Consequentialism aims at realizing the best consequences; it is future oriented.

Honor and integrity

Consistent regard for the highest standards of behavior - Refusal to violate one's personal and professional codes - Includes: fairness keeping one's word meeting commitments avoiding conflicts of interest

Consistency

Critical thinking helps us identify inconsistencies. There are two types of inconsistencies: logical inconsistency which involves saying or believing inconsistent things and practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another.

Accuracy

Critical thought should present accurate details and facts, and thus prompts the thinker to substantiate claims and arguments with evidence. In order to convey the truth or inform others, critical thought should be accurate.

Confidentiality

Ethical duty of non disclosure; rules followed out of respect for persons; aims to protect and preserve the privacy of others; recognized by law as privileged communication

Ethical theories

Ethical theories attempt to articulate and justify principles. -They act as action guides for making moral decisions. -They act as standards for the evaluation of actions and policies.

Utilitarianism

Focuses on the consequences of actions rather than upon some feature of actions. -The utility of an action depends on the amount of happiness produced. -An action is right if it leads to a greater surplus of happiness over misery than any possible alternative and wrong if it does not. -No action is in itself right or wrong.

Kantian Deontology

For Immanuel Kant, the consequences of an action are morally irrelevant. -An action is right when it is in accordance with a rule based on the "categorical imperative Morality of actions is based on some rule or guideline -Kantian Deontology argues that persons act from duty -Central thesis: Categorical Imperative (Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals 1785) -Categorical imperative evaluates motives for actions; 3 formulations.

Duty

Free acceptance of a commitment to service - Includes: availability/responsiveness "on call" accepting inconvenience or risk if patient's welfare is at stake service to the profession service to the community

Relevance

In conveying information to others, the information should be relevant to the question being posed, the task at hand, or the argument being presented. If information is irrelevant or unrelated, it becomes distracting and leads to illogical (weak) arguments. Thus, arguments or answers are unpersuasive.

Clinical Ethics

Incorporates health care ethics and organizational ethics into a structured approach to guide professionals to recognize, resolve, and reflection on ethical issues specific to clinical practice.

Autonomy

Individuals (rational/competent) should be permitted to be self- determining. -Persons have inherent worth, or are "ends in themselves" and should be respected by others. -Violating this principle means treating an individual as something less than a person. -Autonomy is a condition for moral responsibility; through autonomous actions, individuals are able to shape their lives freely without coercion.

Ad hominem

Is the fallacy of personal attack. Instead of presenting a logical counterargument, one "attacks" the arguer. For example: Fracking can damage the environment. The CEO of Sun Energy is a ruthless, self-indulgent business man that does not care about the environment.

Second formulations

Kant argues that in virtue of their autonomous wills persons have dignity or are ends in themselves. Rational creatures possess an autonomous, self-legislating will - they are able to consider the consequences of their actions, make rules for themselves, and direct their actions by those self imposed rules. -Persons have dignity or are ends in themselves. -We must also treat other people as ends, never as means.

narrative medicine

Medicine practiced with narrative competencies to recognize absorb, interpret, and be moved by the stories of illness

Weak argument

Most US presidents have been married. Therefore, probably the next US president will be a man. Inductive arguments can be strong but still be bad arguments! Inductive strength is a lot like validity but deductive arguments are either 100% valid or 100% invalid, while strength and weakness often comes in degrees

Privacy

Privacy is focused on the individual, and describes conditions of limited physical and informational accessibility. The right to be left alone; negative right

Decisional Privacy

Right to make a decision on their own without influence from others

Breach of confidentiality

The UNCONSENTED release of patient information in the absence of legal compulsion or authorization to release it

Ethics

The activities that studies how choices were made or should be made; considers and reflects on how we judge, justify, and defend our moral choices.

Begging the question

The arguer assumes the point to be proven. This is a common fallacy that can occur in two different ways. One way is for the arguer to simply restate the conclusion and assume they are proving a point or constructing a defense. "Drunk driving is dangerous because it is unsafe" "Refusing an MMR vaccine is morally wrong because it is ethically impermissible to forgo preventive care." A second way is creating a circular argument or a chain of reasons for a conclusion. "Teaching abstinence is better than prescribing Truvada, HIV prevention drug. Abstinence is better because there is no chance of HIV transmission. There is no chance of HIV transmission because people will not be having sexual intercourse. People will not be having sexual intercourse because they were taught abstinence.

Altruism

The best interest of patients, not self-interest, is the guiding force. The challenge for the profession of medicine will be to strike that balance between altruism and self-interest that ethicist Al Jonsen described as "the structural paradox of medical morality."

Narrative Approach

The individual person is understood in relation to others (the practitioner, other patients, family, community, etc.)

profession

The occupation which one professes to be skilled in and to follow (a) A vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of learning or science is used in its application to the affairs of others or in the practice of an art founded upon it. (b) In a wider sense: any calling or occupation by which a person habitually earns a living

Informational privacy

The primary type of privacy of ethical and legal concerns in cyberspace and in the clinical setting

Healthcare Ethics

The study of moral values and judgments in the context of medicine, broadly understood (therapeutic relationships, specialty ethics, privacy and confidentiality) and the development of moral rules (principles) to guide behav; applied professional ethics (medical ethics, pharmacy ethics, nursing ethics, etc.).

Organizational Ethics

The study of moral values and judgments in the context of organizations (hospitals, clinics, community centers, mental health/public health departments).

Bandwagon argument

This argument plays on a person's desire to be accepted or valued. The basic pattern is 1. Everybody (or certain people) do or believe X. 2. Therefore, you should believe or do X, too. For example, "Most people buy flooding insurance, (so you should buy it. - as this can be implied in the first statement).

Appeal to pity

This fallacy happens when arguers inappropriately attempt to evoke feelings of pity; rational thinking becomes obscured or hindered due to this illogical tactic. For example: Student to professor: I know I missed the last assignment but I had a really bad week. My car broke down, then I was evicted from my apartment, and finally I accidently spilled a drink on my laptop computer that contained my syllabus.

Scare tactics

This fallacy is committed when an arguer threatens harm if the listener/reader does not accept the conclusions of the argument. Example: Environmentalist to Fracking Lobbyist: This fracking control bill is essential to preserve our environment, and any politician who is against it will discover how wrong they were when leaks begin to affect the health of people and animals.

Equivocation

This fallacy occurs when a key word is used in two or more senses in the same argument. For example: It is federally illegal to grow grass. My neighbors seeded their new lawn to grow grass. Therefore, it is a crime to seed lawns to grow grass.

Straw man

This fallacy occurs when an arguer distorts an opponents argument or claim (this fallacy is quite common). For example: Student 1 argues FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) does a better job than our local government helping our citizens following a natural disaster. But our local government is not bad. They provide food and water to citizens during a natural disaster such as flooding, they organize clean up teams, and they assist families in relocation to new homes. Student 1 doesn't know what she is talking about.- This argument misrepresents the student's claim as she did not say that the local government does a bad job, but merely that FEMA does a better job. The arguer commits straw man by making a claim seem weaker or less plausible than it really is. 1. X's view is false or unjustified [but where X's view has been unfairly characterized or misrepresented]. 2. Therefore, X's view should be rejected.

Slippery Slope

This is another common fallacy that assumes A will lead to B, which will lead to C. For example, "If we legalize physician assisted suicide to end the lives of patients whose suffering cannot be alleviated, then physicians are going to end patients' lives who have good quality and do not suffer, which will lead to anybody receiving physician assisted suicide for whatever reason. Therefore, we probably should not legalize physician assisted suicide." There is no good reason that anybody would receive PAS for whatever reason.

Two wrongs

This is when an arguer tries to justify a wrongful act by claiming some other act is as bad or worse. For example: I don't feel guilty in not getting a flu vaccine this season. My friend has never had a vaccine in her entire life!

Beneficence

This principle focuses on the balancing of risks and benefits

The greatest happiness principle

Those actions are right that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people

Nonmaleficence

We ought to act in ways that do not cause needless harm or injury to others; we have a duty to avoid maleficence.

Utility

We should act in such a way as to bring about the greatest benefit and the least harm.

Distributive justice

We should be treated justly when interacting with others, including institutions. People ought to receive that to which they are entitled to, and that their rights are recognized and protected.

Hasty Generalization

a generalization is a statement that asserts that all or most things of a certain kind have a certain quality or characteristic such as all rubies are red. We commit the fallacy of hasty generalization (a very common fallacy) when we draw a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small (we typically see this in poor research) - "We surveyed the Akron-Canton population and 40% stated that minorities receive less health care than non-minorities. Thus minorities are not receiving as much healthcare as non-minorities."

Etiquette

aims at the regulation of behavior; its goal is to maintain social standards deemed necessary for pleasant or harmonious social interaction. Etiquette is about manners - customs of a particular social class, group, country, etc.

Illustrations

are examples of claims and are not designed to prove claims, e.g., Many persons were displaced from their homes after Katrina. For example, families from New Orleans were temporarily living in Ohio.

Unsupported assertions

are statements about what a speaker/writer happens to believe, e.g., "I believe the CDC should not support mandatory vaccinations for healthcare professionals" - statements can be true/false or rational/irrational. This is a VERY COMMON MISTAKE among persons to assume such assertions are arguments.

Explanations

are used to show why something is the case and not to prove that it is the case, e.g., TB is affecting thousands of people in states bordering Mexico because immigrants do not have access to vaccines.

Argument from authority

asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing some presumed authority or witness who said the claim is true. Mortality rates associated with malaria have dropped 42% globally since 2000. My infectious disease specialist told me this. This is an inductive argument because we cannot be totally sure that the expert is correct.

False Alternatives

committed when an arguer poses a false either/or choice. "Either you support Obamacare or you support a different healthcare system. Surely you don't support Obamacare, therefore you should support a different healthcare system."

Argument from analogy

compares two or more things that are claimed to be alike. John is a dedicated student in the MPH program. Jane is also in the MPH program, so she too is dedicated.

Report

conveys information about a topic or subject; reporting another's argument is NOT an argument; you must put forward your own statements and conclusions in order for you to present an argument.

Precision

critical thought aims to cut through confusions or uncertainties and asks the critical thinker to provide precise answers to precise questions

Completeness

critical thought should challenge the thinker to discuss issues with depth (as opposed to superficial or incomplete discussions). Depth or completeness can also add to the persuasiveness of arguments. Depth is an indication that critical thought has integrity; without depth one is susceptible to snap judgments and hasty deliberations that could be potentially harmful (e.g., biases and prejudices may perpetuate)

Imperfect duties

duty based on reason but not morally binding as these duties may conflict with themselves or other duties (e.g., helping others).

Narratives of Autism

families tell their stories of caregiving and experiences navigating the health care system.

Principlism

guidelines that cannot be applied automatically -express standards to be consulted in attempting to arrive at a justified decision -provide a basis for evaluating actions or policies as well as for making moral decisions -guarantee that our decisions are not in accordance with prejudices or biases.

Boundary Crossings and Violations

health care professionals will share their stories about professional and ethical boundaries they and/or their patients have crossed during their clinical work.

Huntington's Disease and Narrative Ethics

individuals with HD and their families tell stories about their diagnosis, genetic counseling, and values surrounding disclosure to others (partners, children, others).

loss of confidentiality

involves the release of patient information - with or without consent of the patient. Some theorists have claimed that every loss of confidentiality constitutes a breach of confidentiality

Predictive argument

is a prediction (what may or will happen in the future) defended with reasons. For example, the incident rate of TB increases during the summer months each year. Therefore, the incident rate of TB will increase this July.

Inductive generalization

is a statement that attributes some characteristic to all or most members of a given class. For example, most public health officials have a terminal degree.

Conditional statement

is an "if-then" statement such as "If it snows, then we will have no school today." These types of statements are not arguments because there is no claim that any statement follows from any part of a conditional statement. They can be parts of arguments, however.

casual argument

is an argument that asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else. "I cannot get a hold of my professor. He must be teaching a class." "The town's lights are off, there must be a power outage." Statistical Arguments rests on statistical evidence. "Only 40% of Americans regularly see their physicians for preventive care." Statistical evidence can be both in inductive and deductive arguments-it depends on probability vs. certainty

Tu Quoque

is committed when an arguer rejects another's claim/argument because the person fails to act on what was said. My physician told me to get a flu vaccine, but my physician refuses to get vaccinated.

Privilege

is strictly a legal concept though its origins are based in ethical principles. Privilege refers to a statutory rule of evidence that makes that information admissible or not in court during litigation. PRIVILEGE IS A RULE OF NONDISCLOSURE in court. Testimonial privilege encompasses just a small portion of the confidentiality concerns faced by health care professionals.

Attacking the motive

is the error of criticizing a person's motivation for offering a particular argument or claim. For example: Of course the football team is in favor of hiring Jim Tressel as the college's new president. As a former football coach for a Big 10 team, he would be selected as a leader. 1. X is biased or has questionable motives. 2. Therefore, X's argument or claim should be rejected.

Clarity

language and thoughts should be presented clearly so as to avoid miscommunication or ineffective communication

Presumed consent

man social networking websites do not automaticall activate privac controls and assume user is consenting to public access; users have to activate privac (opt-in), which can be complicated to new users or persons not familiar with social networking sites.

Fallacies of Insufficient evidence

mistakes in reasoning in which the premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion

Appeal to Ignorance

occurs when an arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false or, conversely that a claim must be false because no one has proven it to be true.

Appeal to Authority

occurs when an arguer cites a witness or authority who, there is good reason to believe, is unreliable (or an unreliable source) or biased.

Impaired Health Professionals

physicians and pharmacists tell their stories of addiction, survival, and the consequences of their addictive behaviors.

Perfect duties

required duty based on pure reason and morally binding (e.g., honesty, promise-keeping).

Natural privacy

situation in which people are protected from intrusion or observation b natural or phsical circumstances.

Normative privacy

situation protected b ethical, legal, or conventional norms

Morality

the activity of making choices and of deciding, judging, justifying, and defending actions or behaviors

Fairness

thinking should be open-minded and fair; the critical thinking should remove existing biases or unfounded (unsupported) beliefs from critical thought and work with a "clean slate"

Inconsistency

this common fallacy occurs when an arguer asserts inconsistent or contradictory claims. E.g., Sign at a burger king: "10 Free French fry certificates for only $1.00"

Loaded Question

this fallacy happens when arguers ask a question with an unfair presupposition such as "Have you stopped cheating on exams?" - any direct yes or no response puts the respondent in an unfair position.

Weak Analogy

this fallacy occurs when the arguer compares two or more things that are not really comparable in relevant respects. For example, "Lettuce is leafy and green and tastes great with a burger. Poison ivy is also leafy and green and probably tastes great with a burger as well."

Cluster of narratives

this is what a clinical ethicist may do when conducting a consult; gathering different narratives to understand a predicament and what matters - the ethical situation that needs guidance.

Logical correctness

to think critically, accurate and well-supported beliefs are essential, as well as the ability to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow from them.

Valid does not mean true

validity means that the argument is well-reasoned, that the pattern of reasoning is a logically reliable pattern of reasoning, that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Not every valid argument is a good argument. Arguments that are both valid and have true premises are sound arguments, and those that are invalid or have at least one false premise are unsound.

oversimplified cause fallacy

when an arguer assumes without evidence that A is the sole cause of B when, there are several causes of B) e.g., "Jack did not regularly wash his hands. Therefore, he got the flu."

mere correlation fallacy

when an arguer assumes without evidence that because A and B regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B or vice versa

post hoc fallacy

when an arguer assumes without evidence that because one event, A, occurred before another event, B, A is the cause of B. "The hurricane swept in on Monday, and the power went out on Tuesday. Therefore, the hurricane caused the power outage";