An ethical assessment framework for addressing global genetic issues in clinical practice

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all (n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half (n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2020) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

Modelo de toma de decisiones bioéticas en ciencias de la salud

La importancia de la toma de decisiones éticas en ciencias de la salud ha promovido la generación de esquemas que orientan este proceso. El objetivo es proponer un modelo teórico de toma de decisiones bioéticas. Se hizo una búsqueda y revisión de la literatura en bases de datos y bibliotecas electrónicas con palabras clave, se identificaron y analizaron once modelos de toma de decisiones éticas según parámetros establecidos y se incluyeron resultados de estudios sobre el tema. Los esquemas analizados plantean una toma de decisiones basada en la razón a partir de un número variable de pasos cognitivos y, en general, aportan pocos elementos para su aplicación práctica. Se planteó el Modelo de Integración Razón Emoción para la Toma de Decisiones Bioéticas en Ciencias de la Salud. Este modelo sintetiza los pasos cognitivos para tomar decisiones adecuadas, mediante la integración de la razón y la emoción, la posibilidad de aplicación de diversos marcos éticos y la puesta en juego de la competencia ética y las habilidades de pensamiento crítico.

How American Nurses Association Code of Ethics informs genetic/genomic nursing

Members of the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the International Society of Nurses in Genetics prepared this article to assist nurses in interpreting the American Nurses Association (2015) Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (Code) within the context of genetics/genomics. The Code explicates the nursing profession's norms and responsibilities in managing ethical issues. The nearly ubiquitous application of genetic/genomic technologies in healthcare poses unique ethical challenges for nursing. Therefore, authors conducted literature searches that drew from various professional resources to elucidate implications of the code in genetic/genomic nursing practice, education, research, and public policy. We contend that the revised Code coupled with the application of genomic technologies to healthcare creates moral obligations for nurses to continually refresh their knowledge and capacities to translate genetic/genomic research into evidence-based practice, assure the ethical conduct of scientific inquiry, and continually develop or revise national/international guidelines that protect the rights of individuals and populations within the context of genetics/genomics. Thus, nurses have an ethical responsibility to remain knowledgeable about advances in genetics/genomics and incorporate emergent evidence into their work.

Critical social theory approach to disclosure of genomic incidental findings

Technology has expanded genomic research and the complexity of extracted gene-related information. Health-related genomic incidental findings pose new dilemmas for nurse researchers regarding the ethical application of disclosure to participants. Consequently, informed consent specific to incidental findings is recommended. Critical Social Theory is used as a guide in recognition of the changing meaning of informed consent and to serve as a framework to inform nursing of the ethical application of disclosure consent in genomic nursing research practices.

New phosphate langbeinites, K2MTi(PO4)3 (M = Er, Yb or Y), and an alternative description of the langbeinite framework

Three new potassium rare-earth/titanium phosphate structures, K(2)ErTi(PO(4))(3) (KErTP), K(2)YbTi(PO(4))(3) (KYbTP) and K(2)YTi(PO(4))(3) (KYTP), are presented, all of which are characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction studies. In addition, a fourth structure, K(2)CrTi(PO(4))(3) (KCrTP), has been reinvestigated. All structures are isostructural to the langbeinite-type structure and result from changes made to the growth constituents in high-temperature flux-growth experiments intended to give structurally modified potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP). The two crystallographically independent octahedra sites (site symmetry 3) have a mixed Ti/M (M = Er, Yb, Y or Cr) population, although the rare-earth metals favour one site while chromium favours the other. An alternative approach for the description of the channels and cation cages in langbeinite and related structures is given using [M(5)X(6)O(39)] units. The framework of langbeinite is compared with that of nasicon using these alternative building units. All of the investigated structures crystallize in space group P2(1)3 with Z = 4; a = 10.1053 (2) A, R = 0.023 (KErTP); a = 10.0939 (8) A, R = 0.022 (KYbTP); a = 10.1318 (6) A, R = 0.047 (KYTP); a = 9.8001 (2) A, R = 0.016 (KCrTP).