Clinical Supervision of Couple and Family Therapy during COVID-19

This paper addresses the need for a swift transition from in-person clinical supervision to telesupervision during the time of the COVID-19 global pandemic. Five specific areas will be discussed in the effort to enhance the quality of clinical supervision provided to couple and family therapists in training at this time including the following: (1) COVID-19 and the structural changes and technological adaptation of supervision; (2) culturally and contextually sensitive guidelines for clinical supervision during COVID-19; (3) the supervisee’s competence and the clinical supervisory process; (4) the new set of boundaries and the supervisory role; (5) and the supervisory alliance and supervisees’ vulnerabilities in the face of COVID-19.     

The Harm Principle

According to the Harm Principle, roughly, the state may coerce a person only if it can thereby prevent harm to others. Clearly, this principle depends crucially on what we understand by harm. Thus, if any sort of negative effect on a person may count as a harm, the Harm Principle will fail to sufficiently protect individual liberty. Therefore, a more subtle concept of harm is needed. I consider various possible conceptions and argue that none gives rise to a plausible version of the Harm Principle. Whether we focus on welfare, quantities of welfare or qualities of welfare, we do not arrive at a plausible version of this principle. Instead, the concept of harm may be moralized. I consider various ways this may be done as well as possible rationales for the resulting versions of the Harm Principle. Again, no plausible version of the principle turns up. I also consider the prospect of including the Harm Principle in a decision-procedure rather than in a criterion of rightness. Finally, in light of my negative appraisal, I briefly discuss why this principle has seemed so appealing to liberals.     

Life-Prolonging Killings and their Relevance to Ethics

What makes killing morally wrong? And what makes killing morally worse than letting die? Standard answers to these two questions presuppose that killing someone involves shortening that person's life. Yet, as I argue in the first two sections of this article, this presupposition is false: Life-prolonging killings are conceivable. In the last two sections of the article, I explore the significance of the conceivability of such killings for various discussions of the two questions just mentioned. In particular, I show why the conceivability of life-prolonging killings renders Frances M. Kamm's attempt to provide an answer to the second question problematic.     

A Systematic Review: Non‐Suicidal Self‐injury in Australia and New Zealand's Indigenous Populations

Objective

To undertake a systematic review of non‐suicidal self‐injury (NSSI) prevalence, patterns, functions, and behavioural correlates for the Indigenous populations of Australia (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) and New Zealand (NZ; Maori).

Method

We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, MedLine, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, and PsycArticles, CINAHL, and the Informit Health and Indigenous Peoples collections. Studies were included for review if they were published within the last 25 years and reported on NSSI in Australia and NZ's Indigenous populations.

Results

Seven studies were included, six of which came from Australia. The prevalence of NSSI in Australia ranged from 0.9% up to 22.50%; statistics varied by the different samples, types of prevalence, and relationship to alcohol. Several studies found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had higher rates of NSSI than other Australians, but that this was not significantly higher. Two studies indicated that NSSI was linked to alcohol use, incarceration, and a younger age. The one NZ study was of injury and not specifically NSSI.

Conclusions

Findings are limited due to a small pool of literature. Cultural variations in NSSI presentation should be considered when working with Indigenous populations. Further research is required to help determine what cultural variations may exist.     

Minority religions,litigation, and the prevention of harm

Religious anti-discrimination legislation institutionalises non-violent ways of living with radical difference associated with religious diversity. The need to govern the growing number of conflicts generated by increasingly pluralistic societies is a major reason governments have introduced a range of new laws relating to religion. These laws are important not only because they protect human rights, which they do, but also because they shape social processes that generate extreme harms such as mass murder and the sexual abuse of minors. A detailed examination of three case studies of minority religions illustrates this argument. The histories of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints and The Family demonstrate that the socio-cultural processes that result in sexual abuse in minority religions are similar to the processes that result in extreme violence and that litigation plays a key role in preventing the escalation of these processes, although it is of a post hoc nature. The case of the Ordo Templi Orientis demonstrates that religious anti-discrimination legislation proactively disrupts the socio-cultural processes that lead to the escalation of tension that results in serious forms of harm.     

Toward a New Paradigm of Health and Human Potential

In today's highly dynamic and changing industries there are an incredible array of things converging, all of which are signalling a significant need for a new paradigm in health and medicine. Scientific revolutions have brought forward new forms of knowledge, which fundamentally oppose the premises on which the majority of our traditional medical institutions are based. Through my CIRR framework (Critique, Insight, Re-Define, Re-Structure) I will bring forward the key elements and principles of what this paradigm shift is and what would be involved in bringing it into fruition. There are 3 key elements of a paradigm shift which I will review through the CIRR framework these are a) structural and systemic elements b) dynamics of social constituents and pathologies and c) shifts in thinking that have given rise to new forms of knowledge that enable new forms of research and practice. I will demonstrate that the key elements involved in a genuine paradigm shift are here, however it's up to us to bring it into fruition. I hope to inspire both researchers and practitioners towards this new paradigm in health and human potential.     

The Duty to Forgive Repentant Wrongdoers

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider the question of whether we have a duty to forgive those who repent and apologize for the wrong they have done. I shall argue that we have a pro tanto duty to forgive repentant wrongdoers, and I shall propose and consider the norm of forgiveness. This norm states that if a wrongdoer repents and apologizes to a victim, then the victim has a duty to forgive the wrongdoer, other things being equal. That someone has a pro tanto duty to forgive a repentant wrongdoer means that he or she ought to forgive unless other considerations outweigh the norm of forgiveness. Furthermore, a distinction is made between what are termed ‘general considerations’ and ‘case‐relative considerations’, and it is argued that only after all the relevant considerations have been examined can it be determined whether there is a duty to forgive, all things considered.     

伤害回避的脑机制及其生物基础

伤害回避是指个体对厌恶刺激信号做出强烈的反应,并学会被动地回避惩罚的一种倾向,这一倾向使得个体反复思考未来的结局,并谨慎小心地对待不确定情景中的事件,进而更有可能诱发情感障碍。伤害回避涉及的神经网络包括三个子网络,即额顶叶-前扣带皮层的连接、皮层-杏仁核的连接和白质通道的结构性连接,这三个子网络分别与羞怯感-易疲劳性、预期担心以及不确定环境中的害怕情绪有关。而其生物基础则包括单一基因多态性和基因多态间的交互作用。今后的研究应该集中在深化伤害回避神经网络与生物基础间的联合机制、研究三种及以上基因多态间的交互作用、考察其他因素对基因效应的调节作用、注重伤害回避四种亚型相关神经网络之间的连接、探讨5-HT4等其他几种5-羟色胺受体多态性与伤害回避的关系以及分析伤害回避内部机制在抗抑郁治疗中的作用等方面。     

Effects of religious stigma and harm on perceived psychopathology

Prior research suggests that assessment of the pathology of religious beliefs is influenced by conventionality and harm, with less conventional and more harmful beliefs resulting in higher pathology ratings. This study, involving 313 participants, investigated levels of pathology assigned to religious beliefs when the beliefs were either helpful or less severely harmful than those used in prior research, and when the associated religion was either stigmatised (Islam) or non-stigmatised (Christianity). Results indicate that an attenuated form of harm results in elevated pathology ratings. Furthermore, religious stigma impacts these perceptions when beliefs are harmful but not when beliefs are helpful. Ratings in the harm condition were higher for Christianity than for Islam, suggesting that perceived pathology of religious beliefs may depend less on general stigma assumptions and more on perceived consistency between harmful beliefs and assumed religious schemata.     

Confounds in moral/conventional studies

In ‘The nature of moral judgments and the extent of the moral domain’, Fraser (2012 Fraser, B. 2012. “The nature of moral judgements and the extent of the moral domain.” Philosophical Explorations 15 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/13869795.2012.647356.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) criticises findings by Kelly et al. (2007 Kelly, D., S. Stich, K. J. Haley, S. J. Eng, and D. M. T. Fessler. 2007. “Harm, Affect, and the Moral/Conventional Distinction.” Mind & Language 22 (2): 117–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00302.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) that speak against the moral/conventional (M/C) distinction, arguing that the experiment was confounded. First, we note that the results of that experiment held up when confounds were removed (Quintelier, Fessler, and De Smet 2012 Quintelier, K. J. P., D. M. T. Fessler, and D. De Smet. 2012. “The Case of the Drunken Sailor: On the Generalizable Wrongness of Harmful Transgressions.” Thinking & Reasoning 18 (2): 183–195. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.669738.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Second, and more importantly, we argue that attempts to prove the existence of a M/C distinction are systematically confounded. In contrast to Fraser, we refer to data that support our view. We highlight the implications for the moral/conventional theory.