Many psychologists have tried to reveal the formation and processing of moral judgments by using a variety of empirical methods: behavioral data, tests of statistical significance, and brain imaging. Meanwhile, some scholars maintain that the new empirical findings of the ways we make moral judgments question the trustworthiness and authority of many intuitive ethical responses. The aim of this special issue is to encourage scholars to rethink how, if at all, it is possible to draw any normative conclusions by discovering (...) the psychological processes underlying moral judgments. (shrink)

Some experts have argued that patients facing certain types of choices should not be told whether their risk is above or below average, because this information may trigger a bias (Fagerlin et al. 2007). But careful consideration shows that the comparative risk heuristic can usefully guide decisions and improve their quality or rationality. Building on an earlier paper of mine (Schwartz 2009), I will argue here that doctors and decision aids should provide comparative risk information to patients, even while further (...) research is conducted. (shrink)

Nudges are small changes in the presentation of options that make a predictable impact on people's decisions. Proponents of nudges often claim that they are justified as paternalistic interventions that respect autonomy: they lead people to make better choices, while still letting them choose for themselves. However, existing work on nudges ignores the possibility of “hard choices”: cases where a person prefers one option in some respects, and another in other respects, but has no all‐things‐considered preference between the two. In (...) this paper, I argue that many significant medical decisions are hard choices that provide patients with an opportunity to exercise a distinctive sort of “formative autonomy” by settling their preferences and committing themselves to weigh their values in a particular way. Since nudges risk infringing formative autonomy by depriving patients of this opportunity, their use in medical contexts should be sensitive to this risk. (shrink)

In this commentary on an article by Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby (AJOB 16:5-15, 2016), we discuss how external influences on decisions affect personal autonomy. Specifically, we introduce the idea of “pre-authorization” as an evaluative stance by which an individual gives a certain agent preferential access to influencing her decision-making processes. Influences arising from pre-authorized agents may then be seen as promoting, rather than infringing upon, autonomy. While the idea that an external influence can be autonomy-promoting may be inconsistent with individualistic conceptions of (...) autonomy, it aligns well with more relational conceptions that recognize the social milieu in which decisions are made. We suggest that pre-authorization provides a framework for thinking about how relational accounts of autonomy might work mechanistically. (shrink)

Peer commentary on: Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2016). Biases and heuristics in decision making and their impact on autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(5), 5-15.

The realm of non-rational influence, which includes nudging, is home to many other morally interesting phenomena. In this paper, I introduce the term bumping, to discuss the category of unintentional non-rational influence. Bumping happens constantly, wherever people make choices in environments where they are affected by other people. For instance, doctors will often bump their patients as patients make choices about what treatments to pursue. In some cases, these bumps will systematically tend to make patients’ decisions worse. Put another way: (...) doctors will sometimes harm their patients by bumping them in systematic ways. I use the case of medical overuse, the provision of medical services where the likely harm outweighs the likely benefit to the patient, as a touchstone for arguing that doctors who systematically bump their patients towards harm can be blameworthy for their unwitting influence. (shrink)

Frühgeborene im Grenzbereich der Lebensfähigkeit befinden sich in einer prognostischen Grauzone. Das bedeutet, dass deren Prognose zwar schlecht, aber nicht hoffnungslos ist, woraus folgt, dass nach Geburt lebenserhaltende Behandlungen nicht obligatorisch sind. Die Entscheidung für oder gegen lebenserhaltende Maßnahmen ist wertbeladen und für alle Beteiligten enorm herausfordernd. Sie sollte eine zwischen Eltern und Ärzt*innen geteilte Entscheidung sein, wobei sie unbedingt mit den Präferenzen der Eltern abgestimmt sein sollte. Bei der pränatalen Beratung der Eltern legen die behandelnden Ärzt*innen üblicherweise numerische Schätzungen (...) der Prognose vor und nehmen in der Regel an, dass die Eltern ihre Behandlungspräferenzen davon ableiten. Inwieweit probabilistische Daten die Entscheidungen der Eltern in prognostischen Grauzonen tatsächlich beeinflussen, ist noch unzureichend untersucht. In der hier vorliegenden Arbeit wird eine Studie reflektiert, in welcher die Hypothese geprüft wurde, dass numerisch bessere oder schlechtere kindliche Prognosen die Präferenzen werdender Mütter für lebenserhaltende Maßnahmen nicht beeinflussen. In dieser Studie zeigte sich, dass die elterlichen Behandlungspräferenzen eher von individuellen Einstellungen und Werten als von Überlegungen zu numerischen Ergebnisschätzungen herzurühren scheinen. Unser Verständnis, welche Informationen werdende Eltern, die mit einer extremen Frühgeburt konfrontiert sind, wünschen und brauchen, ist noch immer unvollständig. Bedeutende medizinische Entscheidungen werden keineswegs nur rational und prognoseorientiert gefällt. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird diskutiert, welchen Einfluss der Prozess der Entscheidungsfindung auf das Beratungsergebnis haben kann und welche Implikationen sich aus den bisher vorliegenden Studienergebnissen ergeben – klinisch-praktisch, ethisch und wissenschaftlich. (shrink)

Nudging is a tool of libertarian paternalism. It involves making use of certain psychological tendencies in order to help people make better decisions without restricting their freedom. However, some have argued that nudging is objectionable because it interferes with, or undermines, the rational decision-making of the nudged agents. Opinions differ on why this is objectionable, but the underlying concerns appear to begin with nudging’s threat to rational decision-making. Those who discuss this issue do not make it clear to what this (...) threat to rationality amounts. In this paper I evaluate what effect nudging has on our decision-making and I argue that it does not typically interfere with our rationality in a problematic way. Perhaps nudging is objectionable for other reasons, but we should not argue that nudging is objectionable based on concerns about rational decision-making. (shrink)

Disease radically changes the life of many people and satisfies formal criteria for being a transformative experience. According to the influential philosophy of Paul, transformative experiences undermine traditional criteria for rational decision-making. Thus, the transformative experience of disease can challenge basic principles and rules in medical ethics, such as patient autonomy and informed consent. This article applies Paul’s theory of transformative experience and its expansion by Carel and Kidd to investigate the implications for medical ethics. It leads to the very (...) uncomfortable conclusion that disease involves transformative experiences in ways that can reduce people’s rational decision-making ability and undermine the basic principle of respect for autonomy and the moral rule of informed consent. While such cases are limited, they are crucial for medical ethics and health policy and deserve more attention and further scrutiny. (shrink)

Given that biases can distort bioethics work, it has received surprisingly little and fragmented attention compared to in other fields of research. This article provides an overview of potentially relevant biases in bioethics, such as cognitive biases, affective biases, imperatives, and moral biases. Special attention is given to moral biases, which are discussed in terms of (1) Framings, (2) Moral theory bias, (3) Analysis bias, (4) Argumentation bias, and (5) Decision bias. While the overview is not exhaustive and the taxonomy (...) by no means is absolute, it provides initial guidance with respect to assessing the relevance of various biases for specific kinds of bioethics work. One reason why we should identify and address biases in bioethics is that it can help us assess and improve the quality of bioethics work. (shrink)

The shift away from paternalistic decision-making and toward patient-centered, shared decision-making has stemmed from the recognition that in order to practice medicine ethically, health care professionals must take seriously the values and preferences of their patients. At the same time, there is growing recognition that minor and seemingly irrelevant features of how choices are presented can substantially influence the decisions people make. Behavioral economists have identified striking ways in which trivial differences in the presentation of options can powerfully and predictably (...) affect people's choices. Choice-affecting features of the decision environment that do not restrict the range of choices or significantly alter the incentives have come to be known as “nudges.” Although some have criticized conscious efforts to influence choice, we believe that clinical nudges may often be morally justified. The most straightforward justification for nudge interventions is that they help people bypass their cognitive limitations—for example, the tendency to choose the first option presented even when that option is not the best for them—thereby allowing people to make choices that best align with their rational preferences or deeply held values. However, we argue that this justification is problematic. We argue that, if physicians wish to use nudges to shape their patients’ choices, the justification for doing so must appeal to an ethical and professional standard, not to patients’ preferences. We demonstrate how a standard with which clinicians and bioethicists already are quite familiar—the best-interest standard—offers a robust justification for the use of nudges. (shrink)

Patients with advanced dementia are less likely than those with other terminal illnesses to receive palliative care. Due to the nature and course of dementia, there may be a failure to recognize the terminal stage of the disease. A possible and under-investigated explanation for this healthcare disparity is the healthcare practitioner who plays a primary role in end-of-life decision-making. Two potential areas that might impact provider decision-making are cognitive biases and moral considerations. In this analysis, we demonstrate how the cognitive (...) biases and moral considerations of practitioners related to clinical decision-making are inherent in clinical practice and may impact on providers’ accuracy related to diagnostic and treatment related decision-making associated with patients with advanced dementia. Anchoring, default, availability, representativeness and framing biases are cognitive biases based on the "Two System Model" that relate to decision-making in end-of-life care. In patients with advanced dementia, those biases may result in a tendency to adhere to traditional mandatory care, involving an aggressive approach to care, which values saving lives at all costs, without taking into account the possible suffering and long-term consequences. Aspects such as moral sensitivity and moral courage play an important role in ethical decision-making related to advanced dementia. Investigations of clinical decision-making that include the cognitive biases and ethical considerations of practitioners might advance the comprehensive understanding of the clinical decision-making process related to care of patients with advanced dementia and promote the quality of care given to this population. (shrink)

In his paper, ‘Patients, doctors and risk attitudes’, Makins argues that doctors, when choosing a treatment for their patient, need to follow their risk profile.1 He presents a pair of fictitious diseases facing a patient who either has ‘exemplitis’, which requires no treatment or ‘caseopathy’, which is severe and disabling and for which there is a treatment with unpleasant side effects. The doctor needs to decide whether the patient should pursue the unpleasant treatment, just in case he has caseopathy. Makins (...) believes that rational-choice theory is a productive way to approach this problem. This theory frames all decisions as gambles. Each possible gamble (eg, not to pursue treatment) leads, probabilistically, to a set of outcomes (life with no disease and no side effects, but also, possibly, life with a disabling disease, since no treatment is taken). Utilities of these outcomes and probabilities that they will happen are combined to yield a number—expected utility. One is supposed to gamble—to make a choice—in a way that maximises this expected utility. Makins takes this framework for granted and is focused on an additional complication, the patient’s risk preference. He believes that, in his hypothetical example, even if expected utility were exactly the same, withholding treatment …. (shrink)