情境对共情的影响

共情指的是个体在与人交往的过程中共享并理解他人的情绪状态的倾向, 包括认知共情和情绪共情两种成分。现实生活中的共情总是发生在一定的具体情境中, 受到情境因素的影响。其中, 情境的公开性或私密性、意义性等均在不同程度上影响了共情的产生或共情反应的强烈程度。共情对象在特定情境中与共情主体之间的群际关系、人际关系等也是重要的情境因素, 共情主体对于和自己属于同一群体或拥有较亲密人际关系的他人更容易产生共情。情境对共情的影响通过自上而下和自下而上两种方式实现。有关情境对共情的影响研究虽然取得了一定的成果, 但仍然有进一步拓展的空间, 未来的研究需要在情境因素的内涵上进行深入挖掘, 从认知加工的角度对情境影响共情的机制做更为细致、微观地解析, 还可以从共情主体的视角明确个体差异如何调节了情境对共情的影响作用。     

关于临床实践教学中患者隐私权的调查与分析

临床实践教学中患者隐私权的界定与保护一直是舆论界和学术界争论的问题之一.通过发放调查问卷,综合分析患者、医学生及带教医生对这一问题的观点,为解决这一争议进行了理性的思考,并给出了合理的建议.     

反思医院泄露病人隐私现象

医院泄露病人隐私现象,是阻碍医患关系的和谐发展的绊脚石,是一种医疗领域人文缺失的表现.作为医院要设身处地的多为患者考虑,把尊重病人隐私当成一种常态,作为病人、家属及探视者,要自觉形成保护他人隐私的公德意识.     

论保护基因隐私需要引入权利形式

基因技术的发展将基因隐私保护问题摆在人类面前,"采用怎样的方式才能有效保护基因隐私"是一个亟待解决的疑问.从分析侵犯基因隐私所带来的社会危害出发,对"权利形式是否适用于保护基因隐私"这一问题进行分析,并得出肯定性结论.     

患者隐私杈的法学思考

结合法学理论、医疗实践和目前患者隐私权的法律保护现状,就侵权行为、民事责任的认定以及隐私权的限制等问题予以理论阐释,并提出了切实可行的保护措施,如建立健全相关法律法规、医务人员要增强法律保护意识等,以期为患者隐私权的保护提供有益的参考。     

Business ethics and computer ethics: The view from Poland

An Aristotelian approach to understanding and teaching business ethics is presented and defended. The newly emerging field of computer ethics is also defined in an Aristotelian fashion, and an argument is made that this new field should be called “information ethics”. It is argued that values have their roots in the life and practices of a community; therefore, morality cannot be taught by training for a special way of reasoning. Transmission of values and norms occurs through socialization — the process by which an individual absorbs not only values but also the whole way of life of his or her community. It follows that business ethics and information ethics can be considered kinds of socialization into a profession: role learning and acquiring a new self-identification. This way of understanding fields of applied ethics is especially important for their proper development in Central-Eastern Europe because of endemic factors which are the result of recent political developments there.     

Rethinking technology, revitalizing ethics: Overcoming barriers to ethical design

This paper explores the role of ethics in design. Traditionally, ethical questions have been seen as marginal issues in the design of technology. Part of the reason for this stems from the widely held notion of technology being “out of control.” This notion is a barrier to what I call “ethical design” because it implies that ethics has no role to play in the development of technology. This view, however, is challenged by recent work in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS). Looking into the dynamics of technological change, STS scholars argue that human choices are present at every stage of a technology’s development and, furthermore, that human values are reflected in the very design of artifacts. This alternative view suggests that ethics can and should be included in the design process. Drawing on examples from the privacy arena. I point to some of the potential advantages of addressing ethical concerns early on in the design of a technology. I conclude with some general strategies for bringing ethics back into design. A version of this paper was presented at ETHICOMP98, the Fourth International Conference on Ethical Issues of Information Technology, March 25–27, 1998, Erasmus University, the Netherlands. Patrick Feng is a Ph.D. student in the Science and Technology Studies Department at Rensselaer. His research focuses on the development of technical standards that are designed to address social values such as privacy and trust.     

Ethical Problems Inherent in Psychological Research based on Internet Communication as Stored Information

This paper deals with certain ethical problems inherent in psychological research based on internet communication as stored information. Section 1 contains an analysis of research on Internet debates. In particular, it takes into account a famous example of deception for psychology research purposes. In section 2, the focus is on research on personal data in texts published on the Internet. Section 3 includes an attempt to formulate some ethical principles and guidelines, which should be regarded as fundamental in research on stored information.     

PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF PRIVACY: IMPLICATIONS FOR AN ADEQUATE ONLINE PRIVACY POLICY

Abstract: This essay critically examines some classic philosophical and legal theories of privacy, organized into four categories: the nonintrusion, seclusion, limitation, and control theories of privacy. Although each theory includes one or more important insights regarding the concept of privacy, I argue that each falls short of providing an adequate account of privacy. I then examine and defend a theory of privacy that incorporates elements of the classic theories into one unified theory: the Restricted Access/Limited Control (RALC) theory of privacy. Using an example involving data‐mining technology on the Internet, I show how RALC can help us to frame an online privacy policy that is sufficiently comprehensive in scope to address a wide range of privacy concerns that arise in connection with computers and information technology.     

An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.