The relevance of Rawls' principle of justice for research on cognitively impaired patients

An ethical conflict arises when we must performresearch in the interest of future patients,but that this may occasionally injure theinterests of today's patients.In the case of cognitively impaired persons, thequestion arises whether it is compatible withhumane healthcare not only to treat, but alsoto use these patients for research purposes.Some bioethicists and theologians haveformulated a general duty of solidarity, alsopertaining to cognitively impaired persons, as ajustification for research on these persons. Ifone examines this thesis from the theory ofjustice according to John Rawls, it is revealedthat such a duty of solidarity cannotnecessarily be extrapolated from Rawls'conception of justice. This is at least true ofRawls' difference principle, because accordingto the difference principle only those measuresare justifiable which serve the interest of therespective least well off. Those measures whichwould engender additional injury for the leastwell off could not be balanced by any utilityaccording to Rawls.However, John Rawls' difference principleis subordinate to the first principle,which is that each person has an equalright to the most extensive basic libertycompatible with the same liberty for others.These primary goods are determined by thefreedom and integrity of the person.This integrity of decisionally impaired personswould be in danger if one would abstain fromresearch and thus forego the increase inknowledge related to their disease. Thus onecould conclude, at least from Rawls' firstprinciple, that society must take on a duty toguarantee the degrees of freedom forcognitively impaired persons and thus alsosupport the efforts for their healing.     

Correction to: In what conditions are intercultural practices implemented in disadvantaged and diverse settings in Portugal? Associations with professional and organization-related variables

Social Psychology of Education -     

A Short Measure of the Need for Affect

Summary

Widespread divergencies of opinion exist over the usefulness, the nature, the purpose, and the scientific status of clinical psychological testing. This paper seeks to order these problems in historical and philosophical perspective. Largely different values and orientations have been contributed by traditional American academic psychology, by clinical psychology, and by psychiatry. Academic psychologists advocate a rigorous scientific basis (logical positivism) for testing, which the clinician tends to find overly confining and antagonistic to his humanistic, individual centered, service orientation; while psychiatrists tend to differ greatly among themselves in their understanding of psychological testing and hence exert no uniform influence on the practice. The current trend emphasizes greater sophistication in the academic approach to testing, with advances in empiricism and computer-aided manipulation of data, while the more clinically oriented psychologists seek to strengthen their theoretical position and to demonstrate the effectiveness of their methods through studies of clinical judgment. At the same time basic methodological research to support the “clinical position” is yet too sparse. It is proposed that both academic and clinical approaches have a significant contribution to make to clinical psychological testing. Ultimately the design of psychological tests and the evaluation of their usefulness rests upon what we conceive psychological science to be, and we need to remind ourselves, in this regard, that the conception of science is subject to change.     

Awareness of Genetic Counseling and Perceptions of its Purpose: A Survey of the Canadian Public

Genetic counseling can result in better outcomes when clients understand what to expect, and at least theoretically, at some point in their lifespan, anyone could be referred for or benefit from genetic counseling. Thus, in order to identify (and ultimately address) issues around awareness of genetic counseling and perceptions of its purpose, we surveyed the Canadian general population. We acquired 1,000 telephone numbers corresponding to a demographically representative sample of Canada from Survey Sampling International, and invited individuals to participate in a telephone-based survey. We administered a purpose-designed survey (in either French or English) comprising questions regarding: demographics, whether or not the individual had heard of genetic counseling, and 15 Likert scale-rated (strongly disagree—strongly agree) items about the possible purposes of genetic counseling. Responses to these 15 items were used to generate a total “knowledge score”. Of the 1,000 numbers, n?=?372 could not be reached, and the survey was successfully administered to n?=?188 individuals (response rate 30 %). Most respondents (n?=?129, 69 %) had not heard of genetic counseling, and substantial proportions thought that genetic counseling aims to prevent genetic diseases and abnormalities, help couples have children with desirable characteristics, and help people to understand their ancestry. These data could be used to inform the strategy for development of future awareness efforts, and as a baseline from which to measure their effects.     

Perceiving low self‐esteem in close others impedes capitalization and undermines the relationship

Disclosing positive experiences to others (i.e., “capitalization”) is associated with personal and interpersonal benefits (Gable & Reis, 2010). Unfortunately, people who perceive low self‐esteem (LSE) in close others are reluctant to capitalize, holding back from those they expect will be unsupportive (MacGregor & Holmes, 2011). In Study 1, we extend previous findings by demonstrating the importance of the type of experience disclosed; participants capitalized less positively with an (ostensibly) LSE friend when disclosing an accomplishment, not a positive experience attributed to happenstance. In Study 2, we demonstrate the external validity of the phenomenon by examining real discussions between romantic partners. Participants capitalized less positively with their LSE partner, behavior associated with lower relationship satisfaction 6 weeks later (particularly for women).     

The epistemic-teleologic model of deliberate self-persuasion.

Although past theory and research point to the importance of understanding deliberate self-persuasion (i.e., deliberate self-induced attitude change), there have been no empirical and theoretical efforts to model this process. This article proposes a new model to help understand the process, while comparing the process of deliberate self-persuasion with relevant theory and research. The core feature of this model is a distinction between epistemic processes, which involve attempting to form new valid attitudes, and teleologic processes, which involve self-induced attitude change but with minimal concerns for validity. The epistemic processes employ tactics of reinterpretation, reattribution, reintegration, retesting, changing comparators, and changing dimensions of comparison. The teleologic processes include suppression, preemption, distraction, and concentration. By mapping these processes, this model helps to generate many novel and testable hypotheses about the use of deliberate self-persuasion to cope with ambivalent attitudes.     

Responses to interpersonal transgressions in families: forgivingness, forgivability, and relationship-specific effects

Social relations analyses examined the relative importance of forgivingness (disposition to forgive others), forgivability (tendency to obtain forgiveness from others), and relationship effects in determining family members' transgression-related interpersonal motivations (TRIMs) and their perceptions of others' TRIMs toward them (PTRIMs). In 2 studies, the individual and dyadic predictors of these components and their relative importance differed by family role (father, mother, or early adolescent child). Dispositional tendencies accounted for the most variance in father and child forgiveness, whereas mothers' TRIMs and PTRIMs were more strongly determined by relationship and partner effects. Personality correlates of forgivingness and forgivability were moderated by family role. The findings point to the need to embed the study of forgiveness in more complex psychosocial contexts. The theoretical, methodological, and applied implications of this conclusion are discussed.     

A Gabbay-Rule Free Axiomatization of T×W Validity

The semantical structures called T×W frames were introduced in (Thomason, 1984) for the Ockhamist temporal-modal language, _O, which consists of the usual propositional language augmented with the Priorean operators P and F and with a possibility operator . However, these structures are also suitable for interpreting an extended language, _SO, containing a further possibility operator ^s which expresses synchronism among possibly incompatible histories and which can thus be thought of as a cross-history simultaneity operator. In the present paper we provide an infinite set of axioms in _SO, which is shown to be strongly complete forT ×W-validity. Von Kutschera (1997) contains a finite axiomatization of T×W-validity which however makes use of the Gabbay Irreflexivity Rule (Gabbay, 1981). In order to avoid using this rule, the proof presented here develops a new technique to deal with reflexive maximal consistent sets in Henkin-style constructions.