‘Moral luck’ and the question of autonomy, choice, and control in end-of-life decision making

It is commonly assumed that, in the realm of ethical decision making at the end-of-life, ‘luck’ and ‘risk’ do not intrude. Nonetheless ‘moral luck’ (where happenstance makes a moral difference) does intrude and can have an unanticipated impact on the ultimate moral outcomes of end-of-life care. In the interests of upholding the ethical standards of end-of-life care, healthcare providers have increasingly relied on ethical principlism as a rational decision-guiding frame in the sincere belief that such an approach will enable patient selfdetermination and control over treatment decisions when needing end-of-life care. Due to contextual variables and associated uncertainties in end-of-life care, however, the intended moral outcomes of appeals to commonly accepted ethical principles (in particular the principle of autonomy) are not always realized. What is not always appreciated is that whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’ moral outcomes are achieved can be as much a matter of chance as of choice. This essay explores the relevance and possible implications of moral luck in end-of-life decision making and care. A key conclusion of the paper is that the notion of moral luck needs to be taken seriously in end-of-life care contexts since it can have an unanticipated impact on the outcomes of the decisions that are made and thereby on the moral interests of patients facing the end of their lives.

Factors affecting marketing decision making with an ethical content : collusive tendering in the construction contract market

Reports of immoral marketing practices i n the construction industry attract political, media and public but not much academic interest. This paper adopts a behavioural perspective and proposes a model for applying marketing ethics concepts and methods in the study of collusion in the construction contract market. An extensive multidisciplinary review of existing literature identified a lack of adequate conceptualisation of the mechanisms and decision making factors of collusive tendering. The process of developing the model is detailed in this paper. The objectives and methodology of the research project that tested the model are also outlined. The paper concludes with a brief note on the contributions and application of the proposed model.

Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical 'gap':'is there a fair trade twix?'

Children are increasingly being recognised as a significant force in the retail market place, as primary consumers, influencers of others, and as future customers. This paper adds to the literature on children as consumers by exploring their attitudinal responses to a specific group of products: Fair Trade lines. There has been no research to date that has specifically addressed children as consumers of Fair Trade or the ethical purchase decision-making process in this area. The methodological approach taken here is an essentially interpretive and naturalistic analysis of two focus groups of school children. The analysis found that there is an urgent need to develop meaningful Fair Trade brands that combine strong brand knowledge and positive brand images to bridge the ethical purchase gap between the formation of clear ethical attitudes and actual ethical purchase behaviour. Such an approach would both capture more of the children’s primary market and influence future purchase behaviour. It is argued that Fair Trade actors should coordinate new marketing communications campaigns that build brand knowledge structures holistically around the Fair Trade process and that extend beyond merely raising consumer awareness.

Explicit argumentation as a supervisory tool for decision making in child protection cases involving human rights issues

This paper addresses the problems often faced by social workers and their supervisors in decision making where human rights considerations and child protection concerns collide. High profile court cases in the United Kingdom and Europe have consistently called for social workers to convey more clarity when justifying their reasons for interfering with human rights in child protection cases. The themes emerging from these case law decisions imply that social workers need to be better at giving reasons and evidence in more explicit ways to support any actions they propose which cause interference with Convention Rights. Toulmin (1958, 1985) offers a structured approach to argumentation which may have relevance to the supervision of child protection cases when social workers and managers are required to balance these human rights considerations. One of the key challenges in this balancing act is the need for decision makers to feel confident that any interventions resulting in the interference of human rights are both justified and proportionate. Toulmin’s work has already been shown to have relevance for assisting social workers navigate pathways through cases involving competing ethical and moral demands (Osmo and Landau, 2001) and more recently to human rights and decision making in child protection (Duffy et al, 2006). Toulmin’s model takes the practitioner through a series of stages where any argument or proposed recommendation (claim) is subjected to intense critical analysis involving exposition of its strengths and weaknesses. The author therefore proposes that explicit argumentation (Osmo and Landau, 2001) may help supervisors and practitioners towards safer and more confident decision making in child protection cases involving the interference of the human rights of children and parents. In addition to highlighting the broader context of human rights currently permeating child protection decision making, the paper will include case material to practically demonstrate the application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation to the supervision context. In this way the paper adopts a strong practice approach in helping to assist practitioners with the problems and dilemmas they may come up against in decision making in complex cases.

The influence of evidence-based medicine training on decision-making in relation to over-the-counter medicines: a qualitative study

Objectives
To explore the role of evidence of effectiveness when making decisions about over-the-counter (OTC) medication and to ascertain whether evidence-based medicine training raised awareness in decision-making. Additionally, this work aimed to complement the findings of a previous study because all participants in this current study had received training in evidence-based medicine (unlike the previous participants).

Methods
Following ethical approval and an e-mailed invitation, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with newly registered pharmacists (who had received training in evidence-based medicine as part of their MPharm degree) to discuss the role of evidence of effectiveness with OTC medicines. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, all data were entered into the NVivo software package (version 8). Data were coded and analysed using a constant comparison approach.

Key findings
Twenty-five pharmacists (7 males and 18 females; registered for less than 4 months) were recruited and all participated in the study. Their primary focus with OTC medicines was safety; sales of products (including those that lack evidence of effectiveness) were justified provided they did no harm. Meeting patient expectation was also an important consideration and often superseded evidence. Despite knowledge of the concept, and an awareness of ethical requirements, an evidence-based approach was not routinely implemented by these pharmacists. Pharmacists did not routinely utilize evidence-based resources when making decisions about OTC medicines and some felt uncomfortable discussing the evidence-base for OTC products with patients.

Conclusions
The evidence-based medicine training that these pharmacists received appeared to have limited influence on OTC decision-making. More work could be conducted to ensure that an evidence-based approach is routinely implemented in practice

Disease, Disparities and Decision Making: Mandatory HIV Testing of Prospective Immigrants to Canada

Étude de cas / Case study

Decision making in health care: limitations of the substituted judgement principle

The substituted judgement principle is often recommended as a means of promoting the self-determination of an incompetent individual when proxy decision makers are faced with having to make decisions about health care. This article represents a critical ethical analysis of this decision-making principle and describes practical impediments that serve to undermine its fundamental purpose. These impediments predominantly stem from the informality associated with the application of the substituted judgement principle. It is recommended that the principles upon which decisions are made about health care for another person should be transparent to all those involved in the process. Furthermore, the substituted judgement principle requires greater rigour in its practical application than currently tends to be the case. It may be that this principle should be subsumed as a component of advance directives in order that it fulfils its aim of serving to respect the self-determination of incompetent individuals.

Ethics and self-knowledge in corruption related decision making

The nature of corruption in international business is briefly considered and several types of bribes are distinguished. Two managerial decision-models are then proposed, in order to assist international managers faced with corruption-related situations. The first model is based upon an ethical analysis and it conditionally endorses some types of facilitating-payment. The second is based upon a psychological analysis and it involves identification and classification of the generic consequences of bribe payments. The two models are intended to form part of a wider and multifaceted approach to reducing corruption.

Critically impaired infants and end of life decision making : resource allocation and difficult decisions

Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment are contentious, and offer difficult moral dilemmas to both medical practitioners and the judiciary. This issue is exacerbated when the patient is unable to exercise autonomy and is entirely dependent on the will of others.This book focuses on the legal and ethical complexities surrounding end of life decisions for critically impaired and extremely premature infants. Neera Bhatia explores decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from critically impaired infants and addresses the controversial question, which lives are too expensive to treat? Bringing to bear such key issues as clinical guidance, public awareness, and resource allocation, the book provides a rational approach to end of life decision making, where decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment may trump other competing interests.The book will be of great interest and use to scholars and students of bioethics, medical law, and medical practitioners.