SOME THOUGHTS ON PSYCHOANALYSIS AND ETHICS

The author attempts to establish a framework for understanding the contribution of psychoanalysis to ethics through examining the work of certain philosophers, especially Kant. After reviewing the development of Freudian thought and going beyond the ‘psychoanalysis and/or psychiatry?’ question, he asserts that the space of the psychoanalytical cure revolves around an ethical problem. Thus, the limits of analysis should be determined by the subject's capacity for developing a structure of belief in the unconscious, with the concomitant capacity to go beyond equivocation in respect of an ethical conflict that underlies all cases where psychical suffering is manifested. Indeed, only human beings are called upon to deal with an ethical paradox “equally a logical one”which could be stated thus: there is Good in Evil and Evil in Good. This ethical paradox is the consequence of human subjection to the constituent laws of the Oedipus complex, which distances the human being, in his/her dealings with Evil and with Good, from any naturalist stance. In respect of the cure, then, we must take into account that Evil does not proceed from any particular drive‐based characteristic, but is rather the expression of specific subjection to an unconscious Other, towards which it directs its affects. Finally, the author proposes a principle that emerges from the preceding discussion: let us not impute to or place in the Other our own subjective splitting or pain at existing.     

Naked narrative: Real research?

A multi‐layered narrative is presented as a way of inviting discussion about narrative as research in the talking therapies and social sciences. The core issue under consideration is the challenge of researching lived experience and how this is distorted or eliminated by many traditional approaches to research. The paper contains an account of a first experience of presenting a narrative about ethical decision‐making to a national research conference by someone more accustomed to writing and researching in traditional propositional discourses. The aim of this narrative is to focus attention on the lived experience of generating new understanding and practice and to raise questions for discussion about the role of narrative in research, especially research directed towards developing insight into lived experience.     

人类干细胞研究的伦理学争论

关于干细胞研究的伦理学争论越来越成为热门话题。2000年8月23日,美国卫生研究所颁布了涉及人类多能胚胎干细胞研究的指南。指南允许联邦政府资助的研究者进行干细胞研究,但是按照布什总统2001年8月9日的决定,政府只资助有限制的干细胞研究。而在英国、法国、日本、澳洲、以及其他国家,干细胞研究不仅在私人的实验室里而且也在政府的实验室里进行着。无论如何,人类干细胞研究应该按照一定规范谨慎进行。     

Some ethical concerns about counselling research

The whole approach of counselling researchers to ethics may be assumed to have been improving in recent years, especially with the BACP research guidelines (Bond, 2004 Bond, T. 2004. Ethical guidelines for researching counselling and psychotherapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 4(2): 4–9. [Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar]), with its focus on trustworthiness and on the researcher engaging with ethical issues. In this paper we share our concerns about the background to ethical decision making for researchers today followed by our specific concerns for counselling researchers namely: why do counselling research at all?; research that hurts participants; the impact of research on the therapeutic process; restrictive notions around what is data; the politics of funding and informed consent revisited.     

Consumption experience of impulse buying in Indonesia: Emotional arousal and hedonistic considerations

Two studies focused on impulsive purchase experiences. Feelings, considerations and ratings of purchase impulsiveness were measured with respect to a recent purchase by means of interviews immediately after the purchase in the shopping environment (Study 1) and through shopping diaries (Study 2). Feelings and considerations were measured by open-ended questions, which yielded a wide range of responses in each category. These responses were subjected to multidimensional scaling. The results demonstrated a high versus low arousal dimension of positive emotions and a hedonic versus utilitarian dimension of considerations. Emotions and considerations were predicted by general impulse-buying tendency, and were related to the experience of impulsive purchases. In Study 2, impulse buying tendency was measured 2 months earlier. Structural equation modelling confirmed a model in which general impulse buying tendency predicts the feelings and considerations in the purchase environment, which in turn, determine the experience of making an impulsive purchase.     

中国的现代性启蒙:在传统伦理和现代市民社会之间

启蒙就是要促使人类摆脱“不成熟状态”,激发人的无穷想象力和无限创造力,真正确立起独立人格和主体意识。目前中国的现代性启蒙就是要在扬弃传统的基础上,参照西方社会的现代化模式,确立社会成员个体独立的法权状态,促使传统伦理社会向现代市民社会转变,从而为人的进一步发展与完善创造条件。     

Responsible engineering: Gilbane Gold revisited

This paper addresses several concerns in teaching engineering ethics. First, there is the problem of finding space within already crowded engineering curricula for meaningful discussions of ethical dimensions in engineering. Some engineering programs may offer entire courses on engineering ethics; however, most do not at present and may not in the foreseeable future. A promising possibility is to weave ethics into already existing courses using case studies, but most current case studies are not well integrated with engineering technical analysis. There is a danger that case studies will be viewed by both instructors and students as departures from “business as usual”—interesting perhaps, but not essentially connected with “real” engineering. We offer a case study, inspired by the National Society of Professional Engineer’s popular video Gilbane Gold, that can be used to make the connection. It requires students to engage in technical analysis, but in a context that makes apparent the ethical responsibility of engineers. Further, the case we present marks a significant departure from more typical cases that primarily focus on wrongdoing and its prevention. We concentrate more positively on what responsible engineering requires. There is a need for more such cases, regardless of whether they are to be used in standard engineering courses or in separate courses in engineering ethics. This article is the product of the NSF/Bovay Endowment “Workshop to Develop Numerical Problems Associated With Ethics Cases for use in Required Undergraduate Engineering Courses” (NSF Grant DUE-9455141) held at Texas A&M University in August 1995. For further information about this project, contact Michael J. Rabins, Director of the Ethics and Professionalism Program in the Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. Additional case studies from this workshop are available on the Internet site http://ethics.tamu.edu. The writing of this article was supported in part by “Engineering Ethics: Good Works” (NSF/EVS Grant SBR-930257). Michael Pritchard teaches ethics and is co-author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (1995) with C.E. Harris and Michael Rabins (Wadsworth, Belmont CA). Mark Holtzapple teaches chemical engineering and is author of Foundations of Engineering (McGraw-Hill) which includes an ethics chapter suitable for freshman engineering students.     

医院引进股份制机制改革的伦理思考

在卫生改革中医院可不可以进行股份制的试点是一个极富挑战性的问题,我国医院公有制已经实行了数十年,在保障国民健康上作出巨大贡献,但随着改革的进程,医院的发展遇到现有体制、机制方面的许多难题。浙江、上海等地已经实行医院股份制改革试点的经验证明,股份制不等于私有制;在国力不可能更多增加卫生投入的情况下,医院股份制改革促进了医院的管理、社会效益和经济效益,可能是发挥社会力量办好医院、解决我国卫生改革深层次矛盾的途径之一。     

Critiques of Casuistry and Why They Are Mistaken

Casuistic methods of reasoning in medical ethics have been criticized by a number of authors. At least five main objections to casuistry have been put forward: (1) it requires a uniformity of views that is not present in contemporary pluralistic society; (2) it cannot achieve consensus on controversial issues; (3) it is unable to examine critically intuitions about cases; (4) it yields different conclusions about cases when alternative paradigms are chosen; and (5) it cannot articulate the grounds of its conclusions. Two main versions of casuistry have been put forward, and the responses to these objections depend in part on which version one is defending. Jonsen has advocated a version modeled on the approach to casuistry used by moral theologians in the 15th and 16th century, involving comparison of the case at hand with a single paradigm and a lineup of cases. The present author has advocated another version, drawn from experience with cases in clinical ethics, which involves comparing the case at hand with two or more paradigms. Four of the five objections are unsuccessful when directed against Jonsen'sapproach, and all of them are unsuccessful when directed against the approach involving comparison with two or more paradigms.