Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 253–278 | Cite as

Instrumentalist analyses of the functions of ethics concept-principles: a proposal for synergetic empirical and conceptual enrichment

  • Eric RacineEmail author
  • M. Ariel Cascio
  • Marjorie Montreuil
  • Aline Bogossian
Article

Abstract

Bioethics has made a compelling case for the role of experience and empirical research in ethics. This may explain why the movement for empirical ethics has such a firm grounding in bioethics. However, the theoretical framework according to which empirical research contributes to ethics—and the specific role(s) it can or should play—remains manifold and unclear. In this paper, we build from pragmatic theory stressing the importance of experience and outcomes in establishing the meaning of ethics concepts. We then propose three methodological steps according to which the meaning of ethics concepts can be refined based on experience and empirical research: (1) function identification, (2) function enrichment, and (3) function testing. These steps are explained and situated within the broader commitment of pragmatic ethics to a perspective of moral growth and human flourishing (eudaimonia). We hope that this proposal will give specific direction to the bridging of theoretical and empirical research in ethics and thus support stronger actualization of ethics concepts.

Keywords

Empirical ethics Pragmatism Concept analysis Methods Growth Eudaimonia Dewey Peirce 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank members of the Pragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit for feedback on a previous version of this manuscript. This article expands on the ideas presented in a short paper published in the American Journal of Bioethics ( https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1388869).

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé, Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship, Kids Brain Health Network, and IRCM Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Toulmin, Stephen. 1982. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25: 736–750.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Solomon, Mildred Z. 2005. Realizing bioethics’ goals in practice: Ten ways “is” can help “ought”. Hastings Center Report 35(4): 40–47.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baertschi, Bernard. 1998. Les méthodes de résolution de cas. Bioethica Forum 26: 4–11.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hope, Tony. 1999. Empirical medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 25: 219–220.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borry, Pascal, Paul Schotsmans, and Kris Dierickx. 2005. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 19: 49–71.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Racine, Eric. 2008. Which naturalism for bioethics? A defense of moderate (pragmatic) naturalism. Bioethics 22: 92–100.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffmaster, Barry, and Cliff Hooker. 2009. How experience confronts ethics. Bioethics 23: 214–225.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salloch, Sabine, Sebastian Wäscher, Jochen Vollmann, and Jan Schildmann. 2015. The normative background of empirical-ethical research: First steps towards a transparent and reasoned approach in the selection of an ethical theory. BMC Medical Ethics 16: 20.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0016-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies, Rachel, Jonathan Ives, and Michael Dunn. 2015. A systematic review of empirical bioethics methodologies. BMC Medical Ethics 16: 15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0010-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molewijk, Bert, and Lucy Frith. 2009. Empirical ethics: Who is the Don Quixote? Bioethics 23(4): 2–4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrera, Chris. 2008. Is it time for bioethics to go empirical? Bioethics 22: 137–146.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker, Malcolm. 2009. Two concepts of empirical ethics. Bioethics 23: 202–213.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leget, Carlo, Pascal Borry, and Raymond de Vries. 2009. “Nobody tosses a dwarf!” The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics 23: 226–235.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ives, Jonathan, and Heather Draper. 2009. Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: It’s all relative. Bioethics 23: 249–258.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spielthenner, Georg. 2017. The is-ought problem in practical ethics. HEC Forum 29: 277–292.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Vries, Rob, and Bert Gordijn. 2009. Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics 23: 193–201.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmaster, Barry. 2018. From applied ethics to empirical ethics to contextual ethics. Bioethics 32: 119–125.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Scheer, Lieke, and Guy Widdershoven. 2004. Integrated empirical ethics: Loss of normativity? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7: 71–79.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonsen, Albert R. 1991. Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12: 295–307.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jonsen, Albert R., Mark Siegler, and William T. Winslade. 1998. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benner, Patricia. 2009. The primacy of caring and the role of experience, narrative, and community in clinical and ethical expertise. In Expertise in nursing practice: Caring, clinical judgment, and ethics, ed. Patricia Benner, Christine Tanner and Catherine Chesla, 279–307. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sherwin, Susan. 1999. Foundations, frameworks, lenses: The role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics 13: 198–205.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benner, Patricia. 1994. Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Racine, Eric, M. Ariel Cascio, and Aline Bogossian. 2017. Instrumentalist analyses of the functions of health ethics concepts and principles: Methodological guideposts. American Journal of Bioethics 17(12): 16–18.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moreno, Jonathan. 1999. Bioethics is a naturalism. In Pragmatic bioethics, ed. Glenn McGee, 5–17. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolf, Susan M. 1994. Shifting paradigms in bioethics and health law: The rise of a new pragmatism. American Journal of Law and Medicine 20: 395–415.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dunn, Michael, Mark Sheehan, Tony Hope, and Michael Parker. 2012. Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21: 466–480.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dewey, John. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dewey, John. 2002. The moral writings of John Dewey. In ed. James Gouinlock. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pappas, Gegory Fernando. 2008. John Dewey’s ethics: Democracy as experience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ryff, Carol D., and Burton H. Singer. 2008. Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 13–39.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pekarsky, Daniel. 1990. Dewey’s conception of growth reconsidered. Educational Theory 40: 283–294.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fahey, Gregory M. 2002. The idea of the good in John Dewey and Aristotle. Essays in Philosophy 3: 10.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chambliss, J.J. 1993. Common ground in Aristotle’s and Dewey’s theories of conduct. Educational Theory 43: 249–260.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bellantoni, Lisa. 2003. What good is a pragmatic bioethic? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28: 615–633.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Racine, Eric. 2016. Can moral problems of everyday clinical practice ever be resolved? A proposal for integrative pragmatist approaches. In Ethics in child health: Principles and cases in neurodisability, ed. Peter L. Rosenbaum, Gabriel M. Ronen, Eric Racine, Jennifer Johannesen and Bernard Dan, 33–48. London: Mac Keith Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frankl, Viktor E. 1966. Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 6: 97–106.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Misak, Cheryl. 2013. The American pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gouinlock, James. 1978. Dewey’s theory of moral deliberation. Ethics 88: 218–228.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weaver, Kathryn, and Janice M. Morse. 2006. Pragmatic utility: Using analytical questions to explore the concept of ethical sensitivity. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice 20: 191–214.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Racine, Eric, and Dearbhail Bracken-Roche. 2019. Enriching the concept of vulnerability in research ethics: An integrative and functional account. Bioethics 33: 19–34.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bracken-Roche, Dearbhail, Emily Bell, and Eric Racine. 2016. The “vulnerability” of psychiatric research participants: Why this research ethics concept needs to be revisited. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 61: 335–339.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cascio, M. Ariel, Jonathan Weiss, and Eric Racine. 2017. Get involved!—The person-oriented ethics for autism research project. In Paper presented at the Brain-Child-Partners Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, November 6‒8, 2017.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Makoul, Gregory, and Marla L. Clayman. 2006. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 60: 301–312.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strech, Daniel, and Neema Sofaer. 2011. How to write a systematic review of reasons. Journal of Medical Ethics 38: 121–126.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mertz, Marcel, Neema Sofaer, and Daniel Strech. 2014. Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 69.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sofaer, Neema, and Daniel Strech. 2012. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics 26: 315–328.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sofaer, Neema, and Daniel Strech. 2011. Reasons why post-trial access to trial drugs should, or need not be ensured to research participants: A systematic review. Public Health Ethics 4: 160–184.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dickert, Neal W., Nir Eyal, Sara F. Goldkind, Christine Grady, Steven Joffe, Bernard Lo, Franklin G. Miller, et al. 2017. Reframing consent for clinical research: A function-based approach. American Journal of Bioethics 17(12): 3–11.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dewey, John. 1958. Art as experience. New York: Capricorn Books.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Taylor, Charles. 1971. Interpretation and the sciences of man. Review of Metaphysics 25: 3–51.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McDougall, Rosalind. 2015. Reviewing literature in bioethics research: Increasing rigour in non-systematic reviews. Bioethics 29: 523–528.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    McDougall, Rosalind. 2014. Systematic reviews in bioethics: Types, challenges, and value. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 89–97.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rodgers, Beth L. 2000. Concept analysis: An evolutionary view. In Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques, and applications, 2nd ed, ed. Beth L. Rodgers and Kathleen A. Knafl, 77–102. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Levac, Danielle, Heather Colquhoun, and Kelly K. O’Brien. 2010. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5: 69.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Saigle, Victoria, Monique Séguin, and Eric Racine. 2017. Identifying gaps in suicide research: A scoping review of ethical challenges and proposed recommendations. Hastings Center 39: 1–9.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Karpowicz, Lila, Emily Bell, and Eric Racine. 2016. Ethics oversight mechanisms for surgical innovation: A systematic and comparative review of arguments. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 11: 135–164.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Specker, Jona, Farah Focquaert, Kasper Raus, Sigrid Sterckx, and Maartje Schermer. 2014. The ethical desirability of moral bioenhancement: A review of reasons. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 67.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bracken-Roche, Dearbhail, Emily Bell, Lila Karpowicz, and Eric Racine. 2014. Disclosure, consent, and the exercise of patient autonomy in surgical innovation: A systematic content analysis of the conceptual literature. Accountability in Research 21: 331–352.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Forlini, Cynthia, and Eric Racine. 2009. Disagreements with implications: Diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement. BMC Medical Ethics 10: 9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-10-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Allen, Judy, and Beverley McNamara. 2011. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 25: 155–166.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pawson, Ray, Trisha Greenhalgh, Gill Harvey, and Kieran Walshe. 2004. Realist synthesis: An introduction. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pawson, Ray, Trisha Greenhalgh, Gill Harvey, and Kieran Walshe. 2005. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 10(suppl. 1): 21–34.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zizzo, Natalie, Emily Bell, and Eric Racine. 2016. What is everyday ethics? A review and a proposal for an integrative concept. Journal of Clinical Ethics 27: 117–128.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Racine, Eric. 2015. Revisiting the persisting tension between expert and lay views about brain death and death determination: A proposal inspired by pragmatism. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12: 623–631.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Racine, Eric. 2017. A proposal for a scientifically-informed and instrumentalist account of free will and voluntary action. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 754.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Montreuil, Marjorie, and Franco A. Carnevale. 2018. Participatory hermeneutic ethnography: A methodological framework for health ethics research with children. Qualitative Health Research 28: 1135–1144.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Flory, James, and Ezekiel Emanuel. 2004. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 292: 1593–1601.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Grady, Christine. 2015. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. New England Journal of Medicine 372: 855–862.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tam, Nguyen Thanh, Nguyen Tien Huy, Le Thi Bich Thao, Nguyen Phuoc Long, Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang, Kenji Hirayama, and Juntra Karbwang. 2015. Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 93: 186–198H.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sankar, Pamela. 2004. Communication and miscommunication in informed consent to research. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 18: 429–446.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dewey, John. 1929. The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fiester, Autumn M. 2015. Weaponizing principles: Clinical ethics consultations and the plight of the morally vulnerable. Bioethics 29: 309–315.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Callahan, Daniel. 1973. Bioethics as a discipline. Hastings Center Studies 1(1): 66–73.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bracken-Roche, Dearbhail, Emily Bell, Mary Ellen Macdonald, and Eric Racine. 2017. The concept of “vulnerability” in research ethics: An in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems 15: 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hurst, Samia A. 2008. Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics 22: 191–202.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Okai, David, Gareth Owen, Hugh McGuire, Swaran Singh, Rachel Churchill, and Matthew Hotopf. 2007. Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: Systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry 191: 291–297.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bell, Emily, Eric Racine, Paula Chiasson, Maya Dufourcq-Brana, Laura B. Dunn, Joseph J. Fins, Paul J. Ford, et al. 2014. Beyond consent in research: Revisiting vulnerability in deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23: 361–368.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bailey Jr., Donald B., Melissa Raspa, Anne C. Wheeler, Anne Edwards, Ellen Bishop, Carla Bann, David Borasky, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 2014. Parent ratings of ability to consent for clinical trials in fragile X syndrome. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9(3): 18–28.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Brendel, David H. 2003. Reductionism, eclecticism, and pragmatism in psychiatry: The dialectic of clinical explanation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28: 563–580.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Carter, Jay. 2003. Looking into a distorted mirror. Journal of Clinical Ethics 14: 95–100.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Cascio, M. Ariel, and Eric Racine. 2018. Person-oriented research ethics: Integrating relational and everyday ethics in research. Accountability in Research 25: 170–197.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Collie, Philippa, James Liu, Astrid Podsiadlowski, and Sara Kindon. 2010. You can’t clap with one hand: Learnings to promote culturally grounded participatory action research with migrant and former refugee communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34: 141–149.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Howe, Edmund G. 2003. Lessons from “Jay Carter”. Journal of Clinical Ethics 14: 109–117.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mactavish, Jennifer B., Michael J. Mahon, and Zana Marie Lutfiyya. 2000. “I can speak for myself”: Involving individuals with intellectual disabilities as research participants. Mental Retardation 38: 216–227.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Diep, Lucy, and Gregor Wolbring. 2015. Perceptions of brain-machine interface technology among mothers of disabled children. Disability Studies Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.18061/.v35i4.3856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Racine, Eric. 2008. Enriching our views on clinical ethics: Results of a qualitative study of the moral psychology of healthcare ethics committee members. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5: 57–67.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Salsberg, Jon, Ann C. Macaulay, and David Parry. 2014. Guide to integrated knowledge translation research. In Turning knowledge into action: Practical guidance on how to do integrated knowledge translation research, ed. Ian D. Graham, Jacqueline M. Tetroe and Alan Pearson, 178–182. Adelaide: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Carman, Kristin L., Pam Dardess, Maureen Maurer, Shoshanna Sofaer, Karen Adams, Christine Bechtel, and Jennifer Sweeney. 2013. Patient and family engagement: A framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs 32: 223–231.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zizzo, Natalie, Emily Bell, Anne-Louise Lafontaine, and Eric Racine. 2016. Examining chronic care patient preferences for involvement in health-care decision making: The case of Parkinson’s disease patients in a patient-centred clinic. Health Expectations 20: 655–664.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rauthmann, John F., Ryne A. Sherman, and David C. Funder. 2015. Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality 29: 363–381.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Racine, Eric, and Veljko Dubljević. 2017. Behavioral and brain-based research on free moral agency: Threatening or empowering? In Neuroethics: Anticipating the future, ed. Judy Illes and Sharmin Hossain, 388–411. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Habermas, Jürgen. 1973. La technique et la science commeidéologie.” Trans. Jean-René Ladmiral. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Habermas, Jürgen. 2002. L’avenir de la nature humaine: vers un eugénisme libéral? Trans. Christian Bouchindhomme. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Orfali, Kristina. 2004. Parental role in medical decision-making: Fact or fiction? A comparative study of ethical dilemmas in French and American neonatal intensive care units. Social Science and Medicine 58: 2009–2022.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Valentine, Kylie. 2010. A consideration of medicalisation: Choice, engagement and other responsibilities of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Social Science and Medicine 71: 950–957.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Samerski, Silja. 2009. Genetic counseling and the fiction of choice: Taught self-determination as a new technique of social engineering. Signs 34: 735–761.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Humble, Mats, Susanne Bejerot, Peter B.F. Bergqvist, and Finn Bengtsson. 2001. Reactivity of serotonin in whole blood: Relationship with drug response in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biological Psychiatry 49: 360–368.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Johnston, Bridget, Sally Lawton, Catriona McCaw, Emma Law, Joyce Murray, John Gibb, Jan Pringle, Gillian Munro, and Cesar Rodriguez. 2016. Living well with dementia: Enhancing dignity and quality of life, using a novel intervention, Dignity Therapy. International Journal of Older People Nursing 11: 107–120.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Swindells, Rachel, Rebecca Lawthom, Kevin Rowley, Asiya Siddiquee, Amanda Kilroy, and Carolyn Kagan. 2013. Eudaimonic well-being and community arts participation. Perspectives in Public Health 133: 60–65.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Svantesson, Mia, Jan Karlsson, Pierre Boitte, Jan Schildman, Linda Dauwerse, Guy Widdershoven, Reidar Pedersen, Martijn Huisman, and Bert Molewijk. 2014. Outcomes of moral case deliberation—the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD). BMC Medical Ethics 15: 30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Eric, Racine. 2007. HEC member perspectives on the case analysis process: A qualitative multi-site study. HEC Forum 19: 185–206.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Dion-Labrie, Marianne. 2009. Présentation d’une grille d’analyse pour la résolution de situations éthiques problématiques en réadaptation physique: La méthode des scénarios. Montréal: Association des établissements de réadaptation en déficience physique du Québec.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Dubljević, Veljko, and Eric Racine. 2014. The ADC of moral judgment: Opening the black box of moral intuitions with heuristics about agents, deeds, and consequences. AJOB Neuroscience 5(4): 3–20.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Dewey, John. 1966. Three independent factors in morals. Educational Theory 16: 198–209.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Dubljević, Veljko, Sebastian Sattler, and Eric Racine. 2018. Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment. PLOS One 13: e0204631.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Bate, Paul, and Glenn Robert. 2006. Experience-based design: From redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. BMJ Quality and Safety 15: 307–310.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Trebble, Timothy M., Navjyot Hansi, Theresa Hydes, Melissa A. Smith, and Marc Baker. 2010. Process mapping the patient journey: An introduction. BMJ 341: 394–397.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    McDougall, Janette, Virginia Wright, and Peter Rosenbaum. 2010. The ICF model of functioning and disability: Incorporating quality of life and human development. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 13: 204–211.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Brady, F. Neil, and Gloria E. Wheeler. 1996. An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 927–940.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Reynolds, Scott J. 2006. Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 233–243.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Davis, Mark H. 1980. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Paulhus, Delroy L., and Jasmine M. Carey. 2011. The FAD-Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment 93: 96–104.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Nadelhoffer, Thomas, Jason Shepard, Eddy Nahmias, Chandra Sripada, and Lisa Thomson Ross. 2014. The free will inventory: Measuring beliefs about agency and responsibility. Consciousness and Cognition 25: 27–41.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Taylor, Charles. 1984. Peaceful coexistence in psychology. Social Research 51: 551–578.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Streiner, David L., Geoffrey R. Norman, and John Cairney. 2015. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Frith, Lucy. 2012. Symbiotic empirical ethics: A practical methodology. Bioethics 26: 198–206.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    United States Government. 1991. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html. Accessed January 21, 2019.
  122. 122.
    Menikoff, Jerry. 2010. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. New England Journal of Medicine 363: 1591–1593.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2017. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register 82: 7149–7274.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    McDonald, Michael, and Susan Cox. 2009. Moving toward evidence-based human participant protection. Journal of Academic Ethics 7: 1–16.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    McDonald, Michael. 2001. Canadian governance of health research involving human subjects: Is anybody minding the store? Health Law Journal 9: 1–21.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Beagan, Brenda, and Michael McDonald. 2005. Evidence-based practice of research ethics review? Health Law Review 13: 62–68.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Dewey, John, and James H. Tufts. 1913. Ethics. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Brendel, David H., and Franklin G. Miller. 2008. A plea for pragmatism in clinical research ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 8(4): 24–31.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Miller, Franklin G., John C. Fletcher, and Joseph J. Fins. 1997. Clinical pragmatism: A case method of moral problem solving. In Introduction to clinical ethics, 2nd ed, ed. John C. Fletcher, Paul A. Lombardo, Mary F. Marshall and Franklin G. Miller, 21–38. Frederick: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Fins, Joseph J., Matthew D. Bacchetta, and Franklin G. Miller. 1997. Clinical pragmatism: A method of moral problem solving. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7: 129–145.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Fins, Joseph J., Franklin G. Miller, and Matthew D. Bacchetta. 1998. Clinical pragmatism: Bridging theory and practice. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8: 37–42.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Racine, Eric. 2010. Pragmatic neuroethics: Improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Goldstein, Cory E., Jamie Brehaut, and Charles Weijer. 2017. Does consent form follow function? American Journal of Bioethics 17(12): 29–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Racine
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • M. Ariel Cascio
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marjorie Montreuil
    • 1
    • 4
  • Aline Bogossian
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut de recherches cliniques de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Université de MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Central Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  4. 4.McGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations