Create a PowerPoint presentation (minimum 10 slides) that demonstrates the use of professional guidelines and tools that create a strategy for dealing with an ethical dilemma in a simulated case study. Analyze the usefulness of those guidelines and tools.
Ethical principles, professional standards, theories, and decision-making models provide guides for navigating complex moral choices in professional contexts.
An ethical dilemma is a situation that is difficult to resolve because no course of action will be a perfect solution. In such situations, critically analyzing and thinking about all applicable ethical principles and standards is important. Even then, it can be hard to make ethical decisions, but decisions must be made. Often, avoidance of making a decision is a decision within itself, and it can bring the worst possible outcome.
The process for solving ethical dilemmas can be multifaceted. You must consider all parts of a situation in order to make an informed and responsible decision about how to proceed ethically. The more layers, the more difficult an ethical dilemma is to resolve.
The American Psychological Association’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” and similar standards developed by other professional organizations are important sources of guidance. Ethical theories provide general frameworks for evaluating ethical positions. In addition, ethical decision-making models are important tools to resolve ethical dilemmas. These two concepts can be confusing.
To deepen your understanding, you are encouraged to consider the questions below and discuss them with a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend, or a member of your professional community.
- Why are ethics important for practitioners?
- What specific values, skills, and knowledge might you need to be ethical in your planned professional role as a psychological practitioner, educator, researcher, or organizational change agent?
- What are the main theoretical positions in regard to ethics? Which do you think are most valuable? Why?
- What ethical dilemmas might arise in your specialization?
- How can ethical codes and standards help?
- What are the strengths and limitations of these ethical codes and standards?
- What are the differences between ethical theories and ethical decision-making models? How can each help you in your profession?
- What are your current strengths (specific characteristics, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviors) that contribute to your ethics? What areas do you need to develop?
Note: The assessments in this course build upon each other, so you are strongly encouraged to complete them in sequence.
Use the Ethics Case Study Template to complete your Ethics Case Study assessment. Do not submit a paper for this assessment. Papers will not be graded.
Review Fisher’s Ethical Decision-Making Model to support your work on this assessment.
Review the following Ethical Theories
Deontology
The ethical position to do what is right out of duty or obligation. It is often called rule-based ethics.
Deontology has been described as “absolutist,” “universal,” and “impersonal” (Kant, 1785/1959). It prioritizes absolute obligations over consequences. In this moral framework, ethical decision making is the rational act of applying universal principles to all situations irrespective of specific relations, contexts, or consequences. This reflects Immanuel Kant’s conviction that ethical decisions cannot vary or be influenced by special circumstances or relationships. Rather, a decision is “moral” only if a rational person believes the act resulting from the decision should be universally followed in all situations. For Kant, respect for the worth of all persons was one such universal principle. A course of action that results in a person being used simply as a means for others’ gains would ethically unacceptable.
With respect to deception in research, from a deontological perspective, since we would not believe it moral to intentionally deceive individuals in some other context, neither potential benefits to society nor the effectiveness of participant debriefing for a particular deception study can morally justify intentionally deceiving persons about the purpose or nature of a research study. Further, deception in research would not be ethically permissible since intentionally disguising the nature of the study for the goals of research violates the moral obligation to respect each participant’s intrinsic worth by undermining individuals’ right to make rational and autonomous decisions regarding participation (Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994).
Utilitarianism
The ethical position depends on the consequences of the action with the goal being producing the most good.
Utilitarian theory prioritizes the consequences (or utility) of an act over the application of universal principles (Mill, 1861/1957). From this perspective, an ethical decision is situation specific and must be governed by a risk-benefit calculus that determines which act will produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad consequences. An “act utilitarian” makes an ethical decision by evaluating the consequences of an act for a given situation. A “rule utilitarian” makes an ethical decision by evaluating whether following a general rule in all similar situation would create the greater good. Like deontology, utilitarianism is impersonal: It does not take into account interpersonal and relational features of ethical responsibility. From this perspective, psychologists’ obligations to those with whom they work can be superseded by an action that would produce a greater good for others (Fisher, 1999).
A psychologist adhering to act utilitarianism might decide that the potential knowledge about social behavior generated by a specific deception study could produce benefits for many members of society, thereby justifying the minimal risk of harm and violation of autonomy rights for a few research participants. A rule utilitarian might decide against the use of deception in all research studies because the unknown benefits to society did not outweigh the potential harm to the discipline of psychology if society began to see it as an untrustworthy science.
Communitarianism
The ethical position in which the right action is derived from a community’s values and traditions.
Communitarian theory assumes that right actions derive from community values, goals, traditions, and cooperative virtues. Accordingly, different populations with whom a psychologist works may require different conceptualizations of what is ethically appropriate (MacIntyre, 1989; Walzer, 1983). Unlike deontology, communitarianism rejects the elevation of individual over group rights. Whereas utilitarianism asks whether a policy will produce the greatest good for all individuals in society, communitarianism asks whether a policy will promote the kind of community we want to live in (Steinbock et al., 2003).
Scientists as members of a community of shared values have traditionally assumed that (a) the pursuit of knowledge is a universal good and that (b) consideration for the practical consequences of research will inhibit scientific progress (Fisher, 1999; Sarason, 1984; Scarr, 1988). From this “community of scientists” perspective, the results of deception research would deprive society of this knowledge. Thus, communitarian theory may be implicitly reflected, at least in part, in the acceptance of deception research in the APA Ethics Code (Standard 8.07, Deception in Research) and in current federal regulations (Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2009) as representing the values of the scientific community. At the same time little is known about the extent to which the “community of research participants” shares the scientific community’s valuing of deception methods (Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994).
Feminism
The ethical position to act on behalf of persons with whom one has a significant relationship.
Feminist ethics, or an ethics of care, sees emotional commitment to act on behalf of persons with whom one has a significant relationship as central to ethical decision making. This moral theory rejects the primacy of universal and individual rights in favor of relationally specific obligations (Baier, 1985; Brabeck, 2000; Fisher, 2000; Gilligan, 1982). Feminist ethics also focuses our attention on power imbalances and supports efforts to promote equality of power and opportunity. In evaluating the ethics of deception research, feminist psychologists might view intentional deception as a violation of interpersonal obligations of trust by investigators to participants and as reinforcing power inequities by permitting psychologists to deprive persons of information that might affect their decision to participate.
CASE STUDY:
Scene 1, Professor’s Office
Ben: Good Morning Jenny. Are you interruptible?
Jenny: Oh hi Ben. (friendly and teasing), nice surprise. Well, I was just prepping for my upcoming course, but for the department chair I am sure I can take a few minutes.
Ben: Well, I certainly appreciate the time, professor. I wish I had good news. Have you heard about Stan? His wife Julia just had a stroke yesterday.
Jenny: Oh my god, that is terrible!
Ben: I know. It truly is just awful. They think she will be okay but she is probably going to need lots of therapy. Stan is going to take the semester off to help out with her and the kids.
Jenny: Oh what a nightmare. Poor Julia, and Stan and the kids.
Ben: I know, that is why I am here. It leaves us shorthanded here too. Stan was going to teach biopsychology this semester and now he will not be able to. I was hoping you could step in and teach the course.
Jenny: (apprehensive) Oh my, well I do not know Ben, I am really not sure. I only had one biospych course myself as an undergrad…
Ben: No need to worry, we can get all the syllabus and all the material information from Stan and I bet you would do a great job. Listen, there we have got fifteen students who need to that course to graduate. We cannot let them down.
Jenny: That is a sticky situation, Ben but I am just not sure…
Ben: Oh you will be fine. You are still interested in that full-time position when Professor Lee retires, right? Oh by the way, I need to know your answer by 3:00 today whether or not you can teach the course. If not I need to find another professor.
Jenny: Okay Ben. Let me think about it and I will get back to you today.
Part 2
Jenny: I do not know Rhonda, something about this just does not seem right to me. Should I teach the biopsych course even though I have had almost no experience? I mean, why me?
Rhonda: Yeah, have you ever noticed how whenever a problem crops up at the last minute, it is always up to one of us to come in and save the day?
Jenny: I just don’t get it. None of the full professors ever gets overloaded like this. Why didn’t Ben go to Alan? Do you think it is because we are not full professors yet or maybe it is because we are women?
Rhonda: I do not know. It seems like an old boys club to me. I bet if they asked Alan to teach the class they would have offered to pay to pay him something extra. They didn’t offer to pay you something extra, did they?
Jenny: No, of course not.
Rhonda: See what I mean?
Jenny: Yeah, (sigh) something about it just isn’t right.
Download and use the Ethics Case Study Template. You will complete this assessment by replacing all language that is enclosed with brackets […] in the PowerPoint with your own words. As in the previous assessment, you may enhance the design of the presentation to make it more effective. Again, links to tips for using PowerPoint and designing effective presentations are provided in PowerPoint Resources activity.
Your PowerPoint should include the following:
- Title slide: On the first slide of the PowerPoint:
- Enter a descriptive title of approximately 5–15 words that concisely communicates the heart of the case study. It should stir interest while maintaining professional decorum.
- Enter your name, and a job title and organization that would fit with your case study.
- Case Study Overview slides: Provide the briefest possible narrative description of the professional conflict in the case. Additional supporting details and references can be added in the notes section in the slide. The overview should include:
- The professional setting of the case.
- Brief descriptions of the individuals involved and their roles.
- A brief summation of the ethical dilemma presented in the case study.
- Ethical Concerns slides: Bullet point three or more ethical concerns in the case and apply one or more ethical standards to each concern. Additional supporting details and references can be added in the notes section on the slide. Be sure to link to elements of the code.
- Comparison of Ethical Theories slides: In the first row of the provided table, enter the names of two ethical theories that you think would be the most appropriate for the situations in the case. In the following rows, enter comparisons of relevant features of the two theories. In the notes section, evaluate which theory provides a more functional framework for your case and explain why. (Note that ethical theories and ethical decision-making models are two different things. Please make sure you are comparing, contrasting, and evaluating two ethical theories).
- Ethical Decision-Making Model slides:
- Choose an ethical decision-making model, and identify each step in the model.
- Apply the model to your case and, under each step of the model, describe how that step would look if you applied it to the case.
- Incorporate multicultural issues presented in the case study within the selected ethical decision-making model.
- Add copies of this slide as needed, and combine steps on the slides as necessary or appropriate. In the notes section, write out supporting narrative details for your bullet points. (Note that ethical theories and ethical decision-making models are two different things. Please make sure you are applying steps of the ethical decision-making model to your case).
- Proposed Resolution slide: Use bullet points to summarize your proposed resolution to the ethical dilemmas in the case. In the notes section, write out supporting narrative details for your bullet points.
- References slides: Use current APA style and formatting guidelines.
- Citation requirements: You must cite at least three scholarly research articles. You may cite reputable sources form Web sites, books, textbooks, and suggested resources as well, but these will not count toward the three required scholarly research references.
- Written communication: Should be free of errors that detract from the overall message.
- Format: Use the Ethics Case Study Template linked above. Use current APA style and formatting guidelines as applicable to this assessment.
- References: Three scholarly research articles.
- Length of PowerPoint: A minimum of 10 slides.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:
- Competency 1: Apply ethical principles and standards to ethical dilemmas.
- Ethical Concerns: Apply ethical standards to ethical concerns pertaining to a case study.
- Competency 2: Employ models of ethical reasoning and ethical decision making.
- Ethical Theory: Analyze ethical theories and justify application of one theory in an attempt to resolve the ethical dilemma in the case study.
- Ethical Decision Making: Apply steps in an ethical decision-making model to an ethical dilemma in the case study.
- Solution: Design a viable solution for an ethical problem.
- Competency 5: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with expectations for members of the psychological professions.
- Communication: Write clearly, with correct spelling, grammar, syntax, and good organization, following APA style standards.
