China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Deception in Nonhumans
Published in Harold V. Hall, Joseph G. Poirier, Detecting Malingering and Deception, 2020
Harold V. Hall, Joseph G. Poirier
In contrast to nonhuman deception, deception at the human level typically involves deliberateness, preplanning, and cunning. Often, there is also a malicious intent. The rationality and capacity for an operative affect in humans elevates quests of survival goals that go beyond pursuit of fundamental necessities. Humans can choose to pursue immediate and long-term goals that are unnecessary to essential survival. Such goals can include, for example, substances of abuse, wealth, sexual aberrations, and encompass a myriad of forms of quackery. All of these pursuits are cognitively and emotionally justified to be essential for existence, and these capacities are important elements of understanding deceptive behavior at the human level.
The role of monitoring of research for compliance and detecting misconduct
Published in Frank Wells, Michael Farthing, Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 2019
There are some rare circumstances where non-compliance can rise to the level of research misconduct. When monitoring a study, if one suspects misconduct, it is important to examine the data and evidence very carefully to determine whether there really is misconduct or whether the problem is related to poor execution or to lack of understanding of the protocol and study expectations or other variables. This could include not calibrating or improperly calibrating an instrument, not using the appropriate tool or instrument for the measurement, and not taking samples or assessments at the appropriate time, compared with not taking the measurement at all. When we look at different types of misconduct, it can be generally divided into three main categories. These include misconduct related to ignorance, laziness, or malicious intent.17
Introduction
Published in Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Jack Mulder Jr., Civil Dialogue on Abortion, 2018
Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Jack Mulder Jr.
It will also become clear that we actually disagree on whether pro-lifers should consider abortion an act of murder. Interestingly, it is Manninen who thinks they should. She alleges that abortion, on pro-life principles, should be thought so grievous as to constitute not just homicide or manslaughter, but first-degree murder. She simply thinks that the pro-life principles that would generate this conclusion are mistaken. Mulder holds the pro-life position but believes that there are reasons to think that nearly all acts of abortion could not qualify as murder. Murder, as most penal codes recognize, requires malicious intent.12 As Manninen discusses at length in her initial chapter, we know enough about many women’s motivations for abortion to believe that the attribution of malicious intent to them is implausible. Mulder simply holds that they would still lack malice even if it turned out they were mistaken about whether their autonomy extended to abortion or about whether the fetus were a person, or some other such belief that is commonly used to justify abortion. Add to this that in our culture there are widespread disagreements about this issue, as well as politicians who shift their positions in sometimes alarming ways to grasp hold of or continue in power.13 These factors (some more than others) significantly impact our ability to assess the culpability of those involved in abortion.
Pediatric Brain Death Testing Over Parental Objections: Not an Ethically Preferable Option
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2023
A common tenet taught to medical students and other trainees, this aphorism alludes to the fact that children and adults differ not just in size, but also physiology, developmental status, and countless other ways. This idea also carries relevance in clinical ethics. Much of pediatric ethics centers around the role of parents as the surrogates for their children (Katz et al. 2016). Children, unlike incapacitated adults, have not previously expressed their values/preferences, so we generally rely on parental assessments (in place of, for example, substituted judgment). As those who know their child (and their child’s needs) best, parents typically are those best-situated to evaluate what is likely to be best and/or least harmful to them, supporting their role as the individual best-suited to make decisions regarding their care. This parental authority generally is given significant deference in pediatric medicine, though it is not absolute. Typically, however, in the absence of clear and significant harm or obvious malicious intent, clinicians should (and do) defer to the decisions of parents regarding care of their children.
Sex differences in cannabis forms and exposure reasons in cannabis-related poison control center cases aged 50+
Published in Clinical Toxicology, 2021
Namkee G. Choi, Diana M. DiNitto, C. Nathan Marti, S. David Baker
The NPDS-listed exposure reasons are: (1) unintentional therapeutic error, misuse, environmental, food poisoning, general, or unintentional but unknown reason; (2) adverse reaction from drug, food, or other; (3) intentional misuse, abuse, or intentional but unknown reason; (4) suicide attempt; (5) malicious intent/contamination or tampering (e.g., exposure caused by another person’s interference); (6) unknown exposure reason. We recoded these into three categories: (1) unintentional therapeutic error, misuse or unintentional but unknown reason, or an adverse reaction (therapeutic error/adverse reaction hereafter); (2) intentional misuse, abuse, intentional but unknown, or suicide attempt (intentional misuse/abuse hereafter); (3) other (malicious intent, contamination, tampering, or unknown exposure reason). Given its small numbers (n = 95), we combined suicide attempts with intentional misuse/abuse.
Engaging with Cultural Sport Psychology to Explore Systemic Sexual Exploitation in USA Gymnastics: A Call to Commitments
Published in Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2020
Leslee A. Fisher, Allison Daniel Anders
Following Glaser (2002), Stirling and Kerr (2008) defined emotional abuse as “a relationship between a child and caregiver that is characterized by patterns of nonphysical harmful interactions” (p. 173). Indeed, emotional abuse is an extremely common but underrecognized form of child abuse. However, emotional abuse has received very little research attention due to several factors: (a) the cultural (and sport subcultural) acceptance of psychological aggression, (b) the frequent lack of malicious intent by the perpetrator, and (c) the perceived lack of urgency with respect to intervention (p. 173; see also Brassard & Donovan, 2006). Furthermore, limitations with the identification and definition of emotional abuse have impeded research efforts (Stirling & Kerr, 2008).