Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics最新文献

A questionnaire about ethical considerations in experiments involving animals or human subject populations consisting of students, mental patients or prison inmates was administered to 73 undergraduate students enrolled in several psychology classes. For the most part the questionnaire was completed without difficulty, and the results were that most subjects did not differentiate among the human populations, and that human and animal experiments were judged by different ethical standards. For humans, the principal considerations were for the protection and safety of the subjects while for animals they pertained to the design and conduct of the experiment.

The conflict between social science research and the problem of invasion of privacy was discussed. The following paradoxes were posed: (a) techniques regarded as acceptable by psychologists may be unacceptable when used by others, (b) the methodology of the psychologist and the police may be identical, (c) the psychologist has been in conflict with the roles of being both a deceiver and a truth seeker, (d) research that alters our conceptions concerning the roots of social behaviour seems, by its very nature, to raise ethical controversies, (e) greater legal and ethical problems may arise from the use of nonreactive measures and naturalistic research than from laboratory experimentation, (f) for fear of jeopardizing research strategies, the psychologist may be reluctant to communicate his findings to the general public, (g) the researcher may jeopardize his subjects by the gathering of data which may be of interest to prosecutors, and (h) what social science researchers may consider appropriate problems for study, society may consider obnoxious invasions of privacy.

Social scientists were urged to sensitize themselves to societal concerns over privacy rights.

Psychology is regarded as a human scientific endeavour which, amongst other matters, is concerned with its own definition and methodological procedures. While these have not been constant, an objective approach has generally been sought. Like some other scientific inquiries, however, psychology has its roots in literary, humanist, philosophical and linguistic, cultural traditions which not only are a part of its subject matter, but also form part of the environment in which psychological studies and activities proceed. The raising, in particular, of questions of ethics and moral values, themselves not usually seen as constituent concepts of the sciences, would seem to entail the necessary consideration of modern psychology's antecedents, including the debates about subjectivism and mentalism. To the extent that psychology is variously defined and subsumes a wide spectrum of interests and activities, it may be questioned whether a common code of ethics is applicable or conceptually relevant. In order, however, to avoid some of the difficulties inherent in the formulation of dualist or monist positions regarding the object and the act or state of observation, we may look at Popper's scheme of the “three worlds” to try to delineate the field and nature of objective knowledge, in order at least to chart the nature of debate and argument concerning the conjunction of ethical procedures and psychological activities.

A recent APA study has discussed matters relating to psychological work in the U.S. justice system. Much of it is partially relevant to other countries, although because of different standards of training and local legislation, there might be disparities in respect of the applicability both of administrative as well as of professional codes. While the justice system clearly has moral significance of a distinctive kind, it experiences its own changes and developments, as do other social institutions and organizations in which psychologists function. Differences of goals, professional demands in respect of ethical obligations, and particularly differences in the knowledge base available to various staff subgroups may characterize many diverse service settings. Endeavouring to serve society; to meet the needs of various people in the criminal justice system; and to seek to further the application of relevant psychological knowledge may present conflicts, but without necessitating the relinquishing of ethical obligations as these are currently formulated.

Statutes are used to discourage the use, by children, of licit drugs like alcohol and tobacco. The psychological literature supports the view that children under the statutory ages could make a knowledgeable or intelligent decision about drug use, however it is unlikely that children under the statutory ages would make a voluntary decision to use drugs, in the sense that the term voluntary is used in law. Research on drug use suggests that the decision to use is heavily influenced by the example of other people, both adults and peers. It can therefore be argued that children should be discouraged from being influenced towards drug use.

When the law is applied however it tends to be done in such a manner that the drug using child is culpable, rather than those who have encouraged the drug use. In law, minors seem to be considered incompetent to make the decision to use drugs, but culpable if they make such a decision.

The distinction between moral behaviour and ethical codification is considered, and the range of possible approaches to the justification of ethical systems and their formulation is outlined. The question is raised as to whether our psychological codifiers examined alternative approaches and whether, in approving the Codes, members realized that they were endorsing a particular approach. Comments are made about ironic aspects of our reactions to experimental deception, and reservations expressed about the logic and consistency of our approaches to certain moral problems.