Gamete donation and parental responsibility

Abstract Unlike surrogacy and cloning, reproduction via gamete donation is widely assumed to be morally unproblematic. Recently, a number of authors have argued that this assumption is mistaken: gamete donors, they claim, have parental responsibilities that they typically treat too lightly. In this paper I argue that the 'parental neglect' case against gamete donation fails. I begin by examining and rejecting the view that gamete donors have parental responsibilities; I claim that none of the current accounts of parenthood provides good reason for ascribing parenthood to gamete donors. I then argue that even if gamete donors do have parental responsibilities for 'their' children, it is not clear that they treat these responsibilities too lightly. I conclude the paper by examining the wider question of just what kind of responsibilities gamete donors might have towards the children that they have a role in creating.     

The Unbearable Lightness of Bringing into Being

In this paper it is argued that the overwhelming majority of gamete donors are amongst those who treat decisions about bringing children into existence too lightly. The argument proceeds through the following stages.
1) People have a presumptive responsibility for rearing children who result from their gametes. 2) The responsibility people have to rear their offspring is a responsibility not merely to provide a minimum of care, but also to attend to the details of nurturing children and fostering their flourishing. 3) Gamete donors transfer their responsibilities for raising their genetic offspring to those who will raise it. 4) Responsibilities for rearing children are weighty ones. 5) Treating weighty responsibilities too lightly is morally wrong. 6) Gamete donors' decisions to transfer their responsibilities for rearing their offspring to others, almost always involves treating parental responsibilities too lightly. 7) Therefore, gamete donation is almost always morally wrong.     

Gamete Donation,the Responsibility Objection,and Procreative Responsibilities

Sophisticated arguments advanced by Harry Silverstein, David Boonin, and Jeff McMahan attempt to show that being responsible for an individual's existence need not result in an obligation to ensure that the needs of that individual are satisfied. While these arguments take place within the abortion debate, by extension they threaten causal accounts of procreative responsibility more generally. In this article, I defend causal accounts of procreative responsibility by showing that these arguments do not succeed, but without thereby undermining the permissibility of abortion. Further, while being causally involved in the existence of a person is not sufficient for acquiring procreative responsibilities, I argue that there is an especially strong case for ascribing such responsibilities to gamete donors.     

Ethics and Changing Mental Health Care: Concerns and Recommendations for Practice

Recent developments in health care delivery in the United States have left many professionals baffled by the continuing changes in practice sparked by the relatively new managed care environment. Psychologists who practice in medical settings are struggling to balance the seemingly competing needs to deliver quality care to clients and patients, while meeting the demands of third-party payers and trying to remain true to their ethical responsibilities. Critical elements of managed care, which many suggest compromise the ethical provision of quality care, include utilization review, financial incentives, and threats to confidentiality. Recommendations are proposed so that mental health professionals may be proactive in protecting their ethical responsibilities in this changing environment.     

Perceptions of school psychology services from a staff perspective

This investigation examined how staff in an elementary school district perceived their school psychologists and how these perceptions differed across components of service and staff groups. We developed a School Psychological Service Questionnaire and then analyzed responses from regular education teachers, special education teachers, principals, and school psychologists in an urban school district. Although the findings are numerous, most noteworthy are, first, that consumer groups in the district had different perceptions than school psychologists about how school psychologists allocate their time and how this time should be allocated in the future. Second, consumer perceptions of school psychologists' knowledge generally were favorable. Third, in terms of domains appropriate for involvement by school psychologists, a factor analysis of consumer ratings revealed three relatively clear dimensions of recommended service provision — special education activities, interpersonal or school-climate activities, and administrative responsibilities. Fourth, the helpfulness of school psychologists, as perceived by consumers, related positively to frequency of contact. Fifth, differences in perception of school psychological services were evident across staff groups. Finally, comparisons between master's level and doctoral level school psychologists suggested numerous differences in how the staff perceived these service providers.     

Retraction and testimonial justification: a new problem for the assurance view

The Assurance View, as advanced by Angus Ross and Richard Moran, makes the epistemology of testimony a matter of interpersonal commitments and entitlements. More specifically, I argue, their position is best understood as claiming that for someone’s belief to be testimonially justified is for some speaker to bear illocutionary responsibility for its truth (while background conditions are met). With this understanding in hand, I present a problem for the view that has so far escaped attention, a problem deriving from the wide freedom we have to retract our assertions. Retraction dissolves the illocutionary responsibilities that were set up by preceding speech acts; but in some circumstances the epistemic significance of a retraction is effectively nil. We can therefore construct cases in which the responsibilities undertaken in testimony have been canceled, while the justification for belief based on it remains in place—and that shouldn’t be possible, if the Assurance View has things right. I present one such case and press its implications.

     

Do Engineers have Social Responsibilities?

ABSTRACT Most American engineers believe that they have a responsibility for the safety and well-being of society, but whence does this responsibility arise? What does it entail? After describing engineering practice in America as compared with the practice of other professions, this paper examines two standard types of accounts of the social responsibilities of professionals. While neither provides a satisfactory account of the social responsibilities of American engineers, several lessons are learned by uncovering their weaknesses. Identifying the framework in which professional rights and responsibilities are justified, I argue that an end or primary good is the starting place for conceptualizing a profession, and justifying its existence and shape. Too little attention has been paid to the end(s) of engineering. The social responsibilities of American engineers as defined in the present system of engineering are ambiguous and weak. I indicate how the case for assigning American engineers stronger social responsibilities must be made by starting with the end(s) of engineering. I argue that, at present, American engineers do not have social responsibilities as engineers, though they do have social responsibilities as persons.     

Social validity assessment of behavior data recording among human services care providers

Care providers within human services organizations have many job responsibilities and performance expectations. In the present study, we conducted social validity assessment with 78 care providers concerning their attitudes and opinions about behavior data recording with adults who had intellectual disability and lived in community group homes. Specifically, the care providers responded to a written questionnaire that inquired about the practicality, training/supervision, and value of behavior data recording in the context of service delivery. Results indicated generally high approval of behavior data recording practices, purposes, and approaches to training. We discuss implications of these findings for implementing data recording by care providers and the contribution of social validity assessment to training and performance management within human services organizations.     

Community mental health services for black and ethnic minorities

An investigation into the provision of community mental health services in one local authority Borough found that facilities for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the recovering mentally ill into the community were very limited and fell far short of ofJicial recommendations and that very little consideration was given to meeting the needs of black and ethnic minorities. An analysis of data porn service providers (Local Authority/Social Services/Health Authority), multidisciplinary teams, voluntary agencies and 120 black and ethnic minorities (users and non-users of mental health services) in the Borough suggested that black and ethnic minorities had little or no say in decisions about the provision of community mental health services to the extent that they feLt excluded. In many instances service providers had limited contact with black and ethnic minorities and some members of the multidisciplinary team had little to do with black people but yet influenced major decisions about the provision of services to meet their needs. The findings drew sharp attention to the diference between the views of service providers and those of service users in terms of the provision of community mental health services to meet the needs of black and ethnic minorities. Ninety six percent of those involved in the study were appalled over the apparent lack of emphasis placed on the provision of services to meet the needs of black and ethnic minorities and felt that nothing was being done to improve the inadequate service which was offered ly the voluntary sector.     

Immigration and Psychosis: an Exploratory Study

This qualitative study aimed to explore views (and related experiences) of healthcare providers regarding immigration and its relation to psychosis, such as schizophrenia, particularly to identify support needs and challenges of immigrants with psychosis and related challenges and enablers of their mental health service providers. The objectives of this study were to identify (1) barriers and enablers of mental health and other services for Canadian immigrants with psychosis and (2) barriers and enablers for their mental health service providers. The study used a phenomenological approach to elicit views of 12 mental healthcare providers with experience in providing mental healthcare to immigrants with psychosis. Semi-structured individual interview data obtained were coded and thematically analyzed. Six themes in relation to the experience of service provision to immigrants with psychosis were found: the immigration process, service availability and accessibility, social determinants of health, cultural context, psychosocial stressors, and enablers and facilitators of recovery. The most prominent challenges/barriers were related to cultural context, language, social and health services, and support. Most mental healthcare providers believed that immigration process precipitates the first episode of psychosis in a majority of immigrants and that psychosis was undetected/non-present when in the country of origin. This study demonstrated system challenges and related opportunities for service provision for immigrants with psychosis. We identified important areas for intervention to reduce disparities for immigrants with psychosis in their use of social and health services. Future directions for research in relation to immigration of people with psychosis are discussed.     

Speak No Evil: Scientists,Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science

In this paper, I will discuss the responsibilities that scientists have for ensuring their work is interpreted correctly. I will argue that there are three good reasons for scientists to work to ensure the appropriate communication of their findings. First, I will argue that scientists have a general obligation to ensure scientific research is communicated properly based on the vulnerability of others to the misrepresentation of their work. Second, I will argue that scientists have a special obligation to do so because of the power we as a society invest in them as specialists and professionals. Finally, I will argue that scientists ought to ensure their work is interpreted correctly based on prudential, self-interested considerations. I will conclude by offering suggestions regarding policy considerations.     

Modeling support provision in intimate relationships

Whereas supportive interactions are usually studied from the perspective of recipients alone, the authors used a dyadic design to incorporate the perspectives of both provider and recipient. In 2 daily diary studies, the authors modeled provider reports of support provision in intimate dyads over several weeks. The 1st involved couples experiencing daily stressors (n = 79); the 2nd involved couples experiencing a major professional stressor (n = 196). The authors hypothesized that factors relating to (a) recipients (their requests for support, moods, and stressful events), (b) providers (their moods and stressful events), (c) the relationship (relationship emotions and history of support exchanges), and (d) the stressor (daily vs. major stressors) would each predict daily support provision. Across both studies, characteristics of providers, recipients, and their relationship emerged as key predictors. Implications for theoretical models of dyadic support processes are discussed.     

LINKAGES BETWEEN WOMEN'S PROVIDER-ROLE ATTITUDES, PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING, AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

The primary aim of this investigation was to examine the extent to which the meanings women attach to their provider-role responsibilities are differentially related to their psychological well-being and family relationships and to the division of labor in the home. The sample included 43 dualearner and 50 single-earner families. In home interviews, wives reported on role overload, depression, satisfaction with the marriage, and attitudes regarding women's and men's roles. Their children completed two measures assessing daily hassles and their relationship with their mother. Reports of daily involvement in household work were obtained from wives and husbands during four telephone interviews. Discriminant function analyses indicated that aspects of women's psychological well-being and marital and parent-child relationships and of the division of labor discriminated women in four different provider groups: maidsecondary providers, ambivalent coproviders, coproviders, and homemakers. Wives who were ambivalent about their provider responsibilities tended to report higher levels of depression and overload and significantly lower marital satisfaction. Wives who saw their employment as secondary to that of their husbands reported relatively higher levels of depression and overload but also the highest levels of marital satisfaction.     

Counselor-Client Sexual Contact: Implications for Ethics Training

Most programs spend little or no time addressing the prohibition against sexual contact with clients, yet it is the most commonly violated of the ethical principles. This article provides a brief overview of models of ethics training and addresses specific strategies for preventing counselor-client sexual contact. These strategies include knowledge, activities that promote self-awareness, and provision of a climate that enhances the development of moral values and behavior. The responsibilities of training programs are addressed, including the provision of clear statements of the rights and responsibilities of trainees and of a due process and grievance procedure for review of impaired or problematic trainees.     

The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers

Online service providers (OSPs)—such as AOL, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter—significantly shape the informational environment (infosphere) and influence users’ experiences and interactions within it. There is a general agreement on the centrality of OSPs in information societies, but little consensus about what principles should shape their moral responsibilities and practices. In this article, we analyse the main contributions to the debate on the moral responsibilities of OSPs. By endorsing the method of the levels of abstract (LoAs), we first analyse the moral responsibilities of OSPs in the web (LoA_IN). These concern the management of online information, which includes information filtering, Internet censorship, the circulation of harmful content, and the implementation and fostering of human rights (including privacy). We then consider the moral responsibilities ascribed to OSPs on the web (LoA_ON) and focus on the existing legal regulation of access to users’ data. The overall analysis provides an overview of the current state of the debate and highlights two main results. First, topics related to OSPs’ public role—especially their gatekeeping function, their corporate social responsibilities, and their role in implementing and fostering human rights—have acquired increasing relevance in the specialised literature. Second, there is a lack of an ethical framework that can (a) define OSPs’ responsibilities, and (b) provide the fundamental sharable principles necessary to guide OSPs’ conduct within the multicultural and international context in which they operate. This article contributes to the ethical framework necessary to deal with (a) and (b) by endorsing a LoA enabling the definition of the responsibilities of OSPs with respect to the well-being of the infosphere and of the entities inhabiting it (LoA_For).     

Acceptance, avoidance, and ambiguity: conflicting social values about childhood disability

Advances in medical technology now permit children who need ventilator assistance to live at home rather than in hospitals or institutions. What does this ventilator-dependent life mean to children and their families? The impetus for this essay comes from a study of the moral experience of 12 Canadian families--parents, ventilator-dependent child, and well siblings. These families express great love for their children, take on enormous responsibilities for care, live with uncertainty, and attempt to create "normal" home environments. Nevertheless, they experience social isolation, sometimes even from their extended families and health care providers. Their lives are constrained in many ways. The challenges faced by parents of technology-dependent children raise questions of justice within society and within families.     

Bad Faith,Bad Behaviour,and Role Models

I argue that athletes should neither be taken as role models nor present themselves as such. Indeed, they should resist any attempt to take them as such on the grounds that seeing athletes (or other celebrities) as role models abrogates the existential and ethical responsibilities of both parties. Whether one takes on the role of being a model to others or whether one chooses to model one’s own behaviour on that of another, except in respect of the development of technical skill, one engages in bad faith and fails to act in an existentially ethical way. To this end, I consider the inclination to influence and admiration, as well as self-respect, agency, motivation, and envy. I argue that while celebrity sportspersons and similar others do not have duties that others do not have just by virtue of their notoriety alone, they may have situational responsibilities commensurate with their social reach. More importantly, however, since social influence is not a transformation of inert matter, there are also responsibilities belonging to their audiences, those who merely observe and those who choose to imitate     

On Procreative Responsibility in Assisted and Collaborative Reproduction

It is common practice to regard participants in assisted and collaborative reproduction (gamete donors, embryologists, fertility doctors, etc.) as simply providing a desired biological product or medical service. These agents are not procreators in the ordinary sense, nor do they stand in any kind of meaningful parental relation to the resulting offspring. This paper challenges the common view by defending a principle of procreative responsibility and then demonstrating that this standard applies as much to those who provide reproductive assistance in the form of medical services or gametes, as it does to coital reproducers or intending parents. Drawing on vocabulary from the common law tradition, I suggest that it may be helpful to refer to the various participants in assisted and collaborative reproduction (ACR) as accessories to procreation. Referring to the participants in ACR as accessories to procreation highlights the fact that these agents are not just providing medical services or products. They are participating in a supply chain designed to bring about new persons. I conclude by arguing that regulative standards in the fertility industry should be structured such that they permit, facilitate, and encourage agents to satisfy the requirements of procreative responsibility.