Matching Items (25)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: ethics
- Creators: Ellison, Karin
- Creators: School of Life Sciences
Description
The advent of advanced reproductive technologies has sparked a number of ethical concerns regarding the practices of reproductive tourism and commercial gestational surrogacy. In the past few decades, reproductive tourism has become a global industry in which individuals or couples travel, usually across borders, to gain access to reproductive services. This marketable field has expanded commercial gestational surrogacy--defined by a contractual relationship between an intending couple and gestational surrogate in which the surrogate has no genetic tie to fetus--to take on transnational complexities. India has experienced extreme growth due to a preferable combination of western educated doctors and extremely low medical costs. However, a slew of ethical issues have been brought to the forefront: the big ones manifesting as concern for reduction of a woman's worth to her reproductive capabilities along with concern for exploitation of third world women. This project will be based exclusively on literature review and serves primarily as a call for cultural competency and understanding the circumstances that gestational surrogates are faced with before implementing policy regulating commercial gestational surrogacy. The paper argues that issues of exploitation and commodification hinge on constructions of motherhood. It is critical to define and understand definitions of motherhood and how these definitions affect a woman's approach to reproduction within the cultural context of a gestational surrogate. This paper follows the case study of the Akanksha Infertility Clinic in northern India, a surrogacy clinic housing around 50 Indian surrogates. The findings of the project invokes the critical significance of narrative ethics, which help Indian surrogates construct the practice of surrogacy so that it fits into cultural comprehensions of Indian motherhood--in which motherhood is selfless, significant, and shared.
ContributorsMoorthy, Anjali (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Hurlbut, Benjamin (Committee member) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Within ethics, a number of scholars advocate an interdisciplinary approach of combining the two traditionally different professions of science and philosophy with the confidence that this collaboration will be a mutually beneficial experience. Current ethicist-scientist interactions include embedded-ethicists and research ethics consultation services. Both methods are employed with the hope that they will reduce social and ethical problems that could arise from scientific research, and enhance the reflective capacity of investigative teams. While much effort has been put forth in the endeavor of creating ethicist-scientist interactions, there remains opportunity to refine these new interaction models to make them more robust. There is need for ethicists to understand the context of ethical decision-making in the laboratory. By extension, before interacting with scientists in a research lab, research ethicists ought to have the ability to understand the science and also be familiar with the different factors that influence scientific research, such as funding, productivity requirements, time constraints, politics of laboratories and institutional reward structures. Through literature review and the analysis of qualitative data obtained from the ethnographic study in a neuroscience laboratory, this thesis explores the strengths and weaknesses of ethicist-scientist interactions and aims to understand the culture, traditions and values of this community and their perspectives on their role as scientists and their relationship to ethics. This study shows that the quantity and quality of ethics discussions in the lab are limited and dictated by time constraints and minimal incentives. Other influencing factors are the researchers' perspectives on ethics and how they view their role as a scientist in relation to the public.
ContributorsMin, Gyongeun Catherine (Author) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Minteer, Ben A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
With new trends in drug development and testing, it must be determined whether the current state of balance of ethos (the moral norm) and regula (the legal framework) can successfully protect patients while keeping the door to scientific innovation open. The rise of the Clinician Investigator (CI) in both academic and private research introduces a challenge to the protection of subjects in the conflicting dual role of physician and scientist. Despite the constant evolution of regulation and ethical standards, questions about the roles' combined effectiveness in relation to this challenge persist. Carl Elliot describes the suicide of a patient-subject enrolled in an industry-funded physician-run anti-psychotic pharmaceutical drug trial in a 2010 Mother Jones article. Elliot provides a personal account of discrepancies seen in the ethical principles of beneficence, respect for subjects and justice. Through analysis of the problems presented in the case as a model for potential dangers in clinical research, the effectiveness of ethics and law in protecting human subjects is examined. While the lag between ethical standard and regulation has historically shown to cause similar issues, the misconception of current regulation and ethical standards may be contributing to the decrease in subject protections. After IRB approval of subject protections in the research protocol, CIs have been shown to downgrade their responsibility to maintaining ethos through the course of the trial. And, despite their experience in patient-centered ethos as a physician, CIs may be inclined to substitute these values for the ethos of a researcher, with the goal to avoid therapeutic misconception. Maintaining personal responsibility for subjects beyond regulatory structure, and promoting the welfare of the subjects in regards to the ethical standard of research investigators, will provide added security for subjects and decrease opportunity for exploitation in future research.
ContributorsWaddell, Amanda (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Fuse Brown, Erin C. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Zoos are a unique collection-based institution with deep roots in the social structure of modern society. From their beginnings as elite menageries to display power or wealth, they have evolved into public institutions committed to providing exemplary animal care, and recreational and educational opportunities for visitors. More recently, zoos have developed a series of significant conservation programs and partnerships around the globe, efforts that have proved vital to saving endangered species such as the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), among other species.
Intrinsic to the development of modern zoo designs are the interwoven concerns of naturalism and animal welfare. Animal welfare, in particular, has become the paramount responsibility for professionally run zoological institutions as they seek to become centers of conservation and education without compromising animal wellbeing. Animal welfare and naturalism (understood as a design feature in zoo exhibits) are typically harmonious objectives, but these goals have occasionally clashed in implementation. While animal welfare and naturalism are defined in various (and not always consistent) ways in the literature, in-depth interviews of leading professionals and scholars in the zoo community and multi-dimensional case studies of exemplary, accredited institutions (including the Phoenix Zoo, the San Diego Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) provide unique insight into the shifting meaning of these terms and how welfare and naturalism have and continue to shape the
development of modern zoo enclosures. This study concludes by suggesting a possible
future trajectory for innovative and alternative zoo designs that incorporate both animal welfare and naturalism without sacrificing either goal.
Intrinsic to the development of modern zoo designs are the interwoven concerns of naturalism and animal welfare. Animal welfare, in particular, has become the paramount responsibility for professionally run zoological institutions as they seek to become centers of conservation and education without compromising animal wellbeing. Animal welfare and naturalism (understood as a design feature in zoo exhibits) are typically harmonious objectives, but these goals have occasionally clashed in implementation. While animal welfare and naturalism are defined in various (and not always consistent) ways in the literature, in-depth interviews of leading professionals and scholars in the zoo community and multi-dimensional case studies of exemplary, accredited institutions (including the Phoenix Zoo, the San Diego Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) provide unique insight into the shifting meaning of these terms and how welfare and naturalism have and continue to shape the
development of modern zoo enclosures. This study concludes by suggesting a possible
future trajectory for innovative and alternative zoo designs that incorporate both animal welfare and naturalism without sacrificing either goal.
ContributorsBoyle, Kristen E (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Cunningham, Stan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Advocacy groups work across many aspects of “death with dignity” practice and treatment, and provide insight across multiple aspects of “death with dignity”. This study argues that key advocacy groups in the American death with dignity movement influenced the broader conceptualization of death with dignity in a way that makes patients more able to achieve it. This influence has been a dynamic process across different periods of practice starting the discussion of “death with dignity” in 1985 through today, although this thesis extends only to 2011. The question in this study is how do the three main historical advocacy groups in the US: the Hemlock Society, Compassion in Dying, and Compassion and Choices, conceptualize death with dignity with regards to patient and doctor relationship, legal and policy factors, and medical technologies and protocols? This study found that the Hemlock Society (1980-2005) characterized death with dignity as a terminally ill patient being able to “self-deliver” from suffering via autoeuthanasia regardless of medical community approval or legality. Compassion in Dying (1993-2007) characterized death with dignity as involved advocacy work with terminal patients and their communities to pursue palliative care and hospice up to the point of assisted death. This organization was also involved in the passing of Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Compassion and Choices (2007-present) characterized death with dignity similarly to Compassion in Dying but also advocated for adequate management of pain and suffering symptoms in palliative care to prevent people from desiring death over the illness. Conceptualizing death with dignity is important for understanding why patients want death with dignity and better accommodating their end of life needs when they are suffering with terminal illness.
ContributorsCohan, Hailey Elizabeth (Author) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / O'Neil, Erica (Committee member) / Piemonte, Nicole (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Human subject research is a sensitive ethical topic in today's society, and with good cause. The history of human subject research is full of tragedy and wrongdoing, which is what has led to the firm restrictions we presently have. At the same time, we also acknowledge the value behind human subject research and the information science can obtain from such endeavors. This project analyzes this conundrum through a narrative describing a group of scientists who choose to ignore some of the laws and regulations concerning human subject research in order to pursue neurological based research for a "greater good." In the novella, the scientists end up harming several people while performing their illegal research, but are able to obtain successful results. However, the group is eventually caught, and end up having to face the consequences of their actions. The situations and interactions the story presents are meant to juxtapose both sides of the human subject research ethical argument in a unique way in order to allow the reader to critically think through the argument themselves and form their own opinions on the matter.
ContributorsPirotte, Benjamin Daniel (Author) / Finn, Edward (Thesis director) / Cook, Paul (Committee member) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This thesis aims to address the ethics of keeping the big cats, such as lions, tigers, and leopards, in zoos. It is a practice that has generated some controversy in light of scientific studies reporting stress among wide-ranging animals in captive enclosures, as well as in the context of wider discussions in animal welfare and conservation ethics in zoos. A driving question for this project, therefore, was "What are the arguments for and against keeping large felids in zoos/captivity?" This thesis examines the historical and current ethical approaches to evaluating the ethics of maintaining big cats in zoos. Due to many of the big cat species listed as endangered species on the IUCN redlist, the species-centered approach to zoo ethics is becoming the common viewpoint, and, as a result, zoos are deemed ethical because of their contribution to ex situ conservation practices. Further, the ethical arguments against zoos are minimized when the zoos provide suitable and appropriate enclosures for their large felids. Of course, not all zoos are created equal; the ethics of zoos need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general, it is ethical to maintain big cats in zoos.
ContributorsZeien, Krista Marie (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis director) / Smith, Andrew (Committee member) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Attitudes toward animal welfare have been evolving in our society as we have developed from early agricultural roots to an increasingly urban and technologically advanced community. However, despite the growing societal appreciation and care for animals in our homes and backyards, veterinarians are still faced with cases of abuse and neglect. Although it may seem obvious for veterinarians, as animal welfare advocates, to confront this dilemma each time they are faced with it, that is not always the case. In order to assess the responsibilities of veterinarians in regard to neglect and abuse, an extensive literature review and analysis was performed and practicing veterinarians were interviewed to determine their attitudes regarding the responsibility to report suspected cases of animal neglect and abuse. Specifically, these interviews focused on such topics as the educational background of the practitioners, how empathy impacts their perception of animal welfare, their relationship with law enforcement agencies, and related questions. The study demonstrated that the most prominent factor in a veterinarian's understanding of violations of animal welfare stems from their educational background. Therefore, it is recommended that veterinary medicine programs alter their curricula to emphasize animal welfare training and the obligation of veterinarians to report suspected cases of neglect and abuse.
ContributorsMichael, Allison Therese (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis director) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / DeNardo, Dale (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Description
Bottlenose dolphins, or Tursiops truncates, have captured the attention of humans for centuries leading people to keep them in captivity. However, people's love and an increase in knowledge for these creatures have sparked many ethical debates on whether dolphins should be kept in captivity. In this paper, I discuss the different dimensions of bottlenose dolphin captivity focusing on the physiological, psychological, ecological and ethical concerns raised when comparing captive to wild bottlenose dolphins. In an analysis of the scientific literature, I found that captive bottlenose dolphins experience negative physical and psychological effects, including a shorter life span and a decrease in brain size. They also engage in more risky and harmful behaviors. Preexisting brain structures in bottlenose dolphins indicate enhanced emotional processing possibly leading to a more difficult life in captivity. Furthermore, modeling of bottlenose dolphin social networks have found that removal of dolphins from existing populations have negative repercussions for ecological communities, particularly effecting present and future pods due to their complex social systems called fission fusion societies. Furthermore, removal can have a deleterious effect on the environment due to their role as top predators. Available data suggest that bottlenose dolphins should be classified as non-human persons due to their cognitive abilities such as self-awareness, intentionality, creativity, and symbolic communication. This moral classification demands significant human duties and responsibilities to protect these cetaceans. Due to their similarities to humans, these results suggest that keeping bottlenose dolphins in captivity is ethically questionable and perhaps unjustifiable as captivity violates their basic rights.
ContributorsCoonrod, Sarah Mae (Author) / Gerber, Leah (Thesis director) / Smith, Andrew (Committee member) / Minteer, Ben (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
My thesis project, "An Ethical Evaluation of the Practice of Psychiatric Patient Boarding in the Emergency Department" sets out to address a relatively nameless problem in the healthcare system in the United States. This problem is the boarding of psychiatric patients in emergency departments nationwide. What is psychiatric patient boarding? This term refers to the increasingly common practice of care provided to psychiatric patients upon arrival at an emergency department. When inpatient psychiatric beds or services are not available, "boarding" is performed by simply storing mentally ill patients in hallways or other emergency room areas while they wait for the availability of psychiatric treatment, which may take hours, or in more extreme cases has been cited to last for days at a time (Alakeson et. al, 2010). While any individual can expect to wait a prolonged period of time for medical care in the increasingly overcrowded emergency departments, the psychiatric patient experience is astonishingly unique. A psychiatric patient presenting, or arriving, at the ED in crisis can often times find him or herself not only waiting hours to be admitted and assessed as a medical patient would, but with a limited and ever attenuating supply of psychiatric treatment rooms and services, these patients will often times be harbored in an ED room designed for short-term medical treatment without care until psychiatric services become available. Patients can be left waiting for days for an in-patient vacancy; all the while not receiving true psychiatric treatment and in some cases being held against their will in a chaotic environment far from conducive for treatment of a mental health ailment. In this analysis, I will discuss and review aspects of psychiatric patient boarding from various literature, such as why boarding occurs from a hospital and historical standpoint, negative implications of boarding for psychiatric and medical patients, and the burden placed on the hospital when practicing psychiatric boarding. To learn further on the topic, I will share the results from 14 semi-structured, qualitative interviews performed with ED healthcare professionals, being physicians, charge nurses, nursing staff, and certified nursing assistants or patient safety advocates. This portion of my investigation is designed to offer a perspective that the literature cannot, being a first hand outlook on psychiatric boarding from those working on the front line, focusing on topics of all aspects, such as causation, consequences for all involved parties, and proposed solutions.
ContributorsChun, Tristan Eric (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Foy, Joseph (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05