Resources and the Rule of Rescue1

abstract The central issue that I consider in this paper is the use of the so‐called ‘Rule of Rescue’ in the context of resource allocation. This ‘Rule’ has played an important role in resource allocation decisions in various parts of the world. It was invoked in Ontario to overturn a decision not to fund treatment for Gaucher's Disease and it has also been used to justify resource decisions in Israel concerning the same condition. In the paper I consider the nature of the Rule of Rescue and its moral justification. The latter involves consideration of the distinction between agent‐relative and agent‐neutral obligations. If the Rule of Rescue is to be justified, it is plausible to think that it will be in the context of agent‐relative obligations. Two problems with this suggestion are considered: the role of identifiability in the Rule of Rescue and the extent to which policy makers in a health care system can be taken to have such obligations. It is argued that in both cases these problems can be overcome and hence that there is a prima facie obligation to follow the Rule of Rescue.     

DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL MEASURE OF PERSONALITY

A common practice among practitioners and researchers doing cross-cultural work is to transport personality inventories developed in one country to another country of interest. This transport process is done with varying degrees of rigor and success. This paper describes the development of the Global Personality Inventory (GPI). The development process involved cross-cultural input from psychologists around the world following best practices that have been identified to date for each step of the development of a cross-cultural measure of personality. Construct validity studies including data from 11 countries and 10 languages are reported. Initial criterion-related validity evidence for inferences made from the GPI about job performance is presented. Examples of challenges and best practices are illustrated in the areas of construct development, item writing, item selection, translation, and data analysis.     

Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements

The current paper analyses judgements regarding the decision to commute by car versus public transportation in terms of a conflict between immediate self-interest and long-term collective interest (i.e. social dilemma). Extending traditional formulations of rational choice theory, the present study revealed that preferences for public transportation (i.e. the presumed cooperative option) in a standard commuting situation were enhanced not only by the belief that public transportation provided a shorter average travel time than car (i.e. the presumed noncooperative option), but also by the belief that public transportation was at least as reliable (i.e. an equal or lower variability in travel time compared to car). Moreover, paralleling prior research on experimental social dilemmas, preferences were found to be affected by a pro-social concern—the belief regarding the impact of cars on the level of environmental pollution. Our findings indicated that any combination of two such considerations (i.e. travel time, variability, and impact of cars on pollution) was m ore effective in promoting public transportation preferences than the sum of their separate effects. Finally, we obtained evidence that commuter preferences were also shaped by individual differences in social value orientations (i.e. preferences for patterns of outcomes for self and others) in that, relative to pro-self commuters, pro-social commuters exhibited greater preference for public transportation.