Social egg freezing (SEF) is a new reproductive technology that is increasingly used within ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, stirring tensions between tradition and modernity. Based on in-depth semi-structured interviews, this study examined how ultra-Orthodox singles who employ SEF engage in social negotiations over gender- and body-related norms. Findings show that participants successfully assimilated SEF by establishing facts on the ground and discreetly spreading information while actively avoiding tensions that may threaten religious tradition. SEF did not push participants into modern individualism or dissolve their strong connection to the community. However they did modify social boundaries and articulated social criticism.

BACKGROUND: Confidentiality is one of the central preconditions for clinical ethics support (CES). CES cases which generate moral questions for CES staff concerning (breaching) confidentiality of what has been discussed during CES can cause moral challenges. Currently, there seems to be no clear policy or guidance regarding how CES staff can or should deal with these moral challenges related to (not) breaching confidentiality within CES. Moral case deliberation is a specific kind of CES.
METHODS: Based on experiences and research into MCD facilitators\' needs for ethics support in this regard, we jointly developed an ethics support tool for MCD facilitators: the Confidentiality Compass. This paper describes the iterative developmental process, including our theoretical viewpoints and reflections on characteristics of CES tools in general.
RESULTS: The content and goals of the ethics support tool, which contains four elements, is described. Part A is about providing information on the concept of confidentiality in MCD, part B is a moral compass with reflective questions, part C focuses on courses of action for careful handling of moral challenges related to confidentiality. Part D contains general lessons, best practices and tips for dealing with confidentiality in future cases.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper concludes with providing some lessons-learned related to developing ethics support tools and some reflections on issues of quality and normativity of ethics support tools.

Principles for priority setting in health care are typically forged by experts influenced by the normative literature on priority setting. Meanwhile, their implementation is subject to democratic deliberation, political pressures, and administrative bureaucracy. Sometimes expert proposals are democratically rejected. This points towards a problem: on the one hand, the fact that a majority shares a moral belief does not inherently validate this belief. On the other hand, when justifying a position to others, we cannot expect much success without engaging with their moral judgments. In this work we examine the possibility of including so-called popular views in a reflective equilibrium process. In reflective equilibrium processes, we are usually interested in considered judgments rather than mere intuitions. Popular views, arguably, often do not meet this standard. To mitigate this, we propose to bolster popular views by linking them with theoretical frameworks echoing similar moral perspectives. We use illness severity as a case study and show that a set of popular accounts can provide considered judgments that merit inclusion in a publicly informed reflective equilibrium process. This is plausibly a way forward in the search for priority setting principles that are both normatively sound and acceptable to the public. Our method provides a general framework for refining available data on popular views on moral questions, including when we cannot assess the consideredness of such views.

Mere inability, which refers to what persons are naturally unable to do, is traditionally thought to be distinct from unfreedom, which is a social type of constraint. The advent of biomedical enhancement, however, challenges the idea that there is a clear division between mere inability and unfreedom. This is because bioenhancement makes it possible for some people\'s mere inabilities to become matters of unfreedom. In this paper, I discuss several ways that this might occur: first, bioenhancement can exacerbate social pressures to enhance one\'s abilities; second, people may face discrimination for not enhancing; third, the new abilities made possible due to bioenhancement may be accompanied by new inabilities for the enhanced and unenhanced; and finally, shifting values around abilities and inabilities due to bioenhancement may reinforce a pre-existing ableism about human abilities. As such, we must give careful consideration to these potential unfreedom-generating outcomes when it comes to our moral evaluations of bioenhancement.

Intensive care unit (ICU) professionals engage in ethical decision making under conditions of high stakes, great uncertainty, time-sensitivity and frequent irreversibility of action. Casuistry is a way by which actionable knowledge is obtained through comparing a patient case to previous cases from experience in clinical practice. However, within the field of study as well as in practice, evidence-based medicine is the dominant epistemic framework. This multiple case study evaluated the use of casuistic reasoning by intensive care unit (ICU) professionals during moral case deliberation. It took place in two Dutch hospitals between June 2020 and June 2022. Twentyfive moral case deliberations from ICU practice were recorded and analyzed using discourse analysis. Additionally, 47 interviews were held with ICU professionals who participated in these deliberations, analyzed using thematic analysis. We found that ICU professionals made considerable use of case comparisons when discussing continuation, withdrawal or limitation. Analogies played a role in justifying or complicating moral judgements, and also played a role in addressing moral distress. The language of case-based arguments is most often not overtly normative. Rather, the data shows that casuistic reasoning deals with the medical, ethical and contextual elements of decisions in an integrated manner. Facilitators of MCD have an essential role in (supporting ICU professionals in) scrutinizing casuistic arguments. The data shows that during MCD, actual reasoning often deviated from principle- and rule-based reasoning which ICU professionals preferred themselves. Evidence-based arguments often gained the character of analogical arguments, especially when a patient-at-hand was seen as highly unique from the average patients in the literature. Casuistic arguments disguised as evidence-based arguments may therefore provide ICU professionals with a false sense of certainty. Within education, we should strive to train clinicians and ethics facilitators so that they can recognize and evaluate casuistic arguments.

This Article analyzes the 2021 judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab. The case has garnered significant local and international attention due to the Court\'s ruling that a death sentence may not be carried out on a defendant who has a mental illness. Setting the case against the backdrop of Pakistan\'s Islamic and colonial contexts, this article argues that the Supreme Court has reshaped the insanity defense in Pakistani law by placing the determination of a defendant\'s mental state mainly in the hands of medical professionals. However, the Court\'s reliance on medical professionals and the subsequent downplaying of the \"moral capacity\" element of the insanity defense-a determination of law made by courts-has created an obstacle for courts to punish offenders more stringently in future cases due to the popular belief that mental health professionals are ill-equipped to answer broader questions of justice for victims and society. The article recommends that this issue can be remedied by establishing an objective legal test for insanity that considers Islamic law, Pakistani precedent, and advances in medical science.

Moral distress forms a major threat to the well-being of healthcare professionals, and is argued to negatively impact patient care. It is associated with emotions such as anger, frustration, guilt, and anxiety. In order to effectively deal with moral distress, the concept of moral resilience is introduced as the positive capacity of an individual to sustain or restore their integrity in response to moral adversity. Interventions are needed that foster moral resilience among healthcare professionals. Ethics consultation has been proposed as such an intervention. In this paper, we add to this proposition by discussing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) as a specific form of clinical ethics support that promotes moral resilience. We argue that MCD in general may contribute to the moral resilience of healthcare professionals as it promotes moral agency. In addition, we focus on three specific MCD reflection methods: the Dilemma Method, the Aristotelian moral inquiry into emotions, and CURA, a method consisting of four main steps: Concentrate, Unrush, Reflect, and Act. In practice, all three methods are used by nurse ethicists or by nurses who received training to facilitate reflection sessions with these methods. We maintain that these methods also have specific elements that promote moral resilience. However, the Dilemma Method fosters dealing well with tragedy, the latter two promote moral resilience by including attention to emotions as part of the reflection process. We will end with discussing the importance of future empirical research on the impact of MCD on moral resilience, and of comparing MCD with other interventions that seek to mitigate moral distress and promote moral resilience.

UNASSIGNED: A promising approach to enhancing trauma-focused treatment is moral elevation-feeling inspired by witnessing a virtuous act. This study explored potential links between eliciting elevation and relevant outcomes in a series of case examples. Veterans with probable posttraumatic stress disorder completed experimental tasks including a written trauma narrative exercise and watching elevation-eliciting videos. Participants also completed baseline assessments, repeated measures of trauma-related cognitions, emotions, elevation, and saliva sample collection. Four cases were identified and reviewed: two positive responders (high elevation after videos) and two nonresponders (restricted elevation response). Positive responder cases reported decreased cognitions, emotions, and moral injury distress from after the trauma narrative to after elevation exercises, whereas nonresponders reported minimal to no changes. Positive responders also demonstrated decreases in cortisol, whereas nonresponders demonstrated increases in cortisol. Future work should examine whether elevation contributes to changes in biopsychosocial outcomes and identify individual factors that indicate who might benefit from elevation-based interventions.

暂无摘要。

In the \"Dual-Process theory\", morality is characterized by the interaction between an automatic-emotional process, mediated by the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) and linked to personal-deontological decisions, and a rational-conscious one, mediated by the Dorso-Lateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) and linked to impersonal-utilitarian decisions. These areas are altered by chronic use of cocaine, with a possible impact on moral decision-making.
To evaluate the difference between a group of Cocaine Use Disorder (CUD) patients and a control group in moral decision-making.
Subjects with CUD were compared to an equal-sized healthy group regarding their moral decision-making. Trolley and Footbridge Moral Dilemmas were administered to each group. The quality of the answer (yes or no) and the time needed to answer were recorded.
The recruited group includes 72 subjects, 36 with CUD and 36 healthy subjects (average age of 39.51 ± 9.89). In the Trolley dilemma, almost all the subjects (97.3%) answered \"yes\", while in the Footbridge dilemma CUD subjects answered \"yes\" more often (52.7%) than the healthy group (19.4%).
For strong emotional dilemmas (Footbridge), cocaine users answered \"yes\" with a higher frequency compared to healthy subjects, highlighting a wider utilitarian tendency in decision-making and a poor emotional participation.