The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the possibility of designing a satisfactory method, using written responses to hypotheical scenarios, for evaluating the quality of moral reasoning in student nurses. Scenarios were developed from interviews with practising nurses. Nurses and student nurses provided written responses to the scenarios, and nursing faculty members from six institutions sorted the responses according to their perceptions of quality (i.e. 'best', 'next best', 'worst' etc.). There was very little agreement among faculty members on (...) the quality of the responses. Consequently, it was impossible to develop a 'best' response on which the faculty members could agree. Analysis revealed a framework used by the participants for ethical decision-making. The results of this study have important implications for the way in which we think about the teaching and the evaluation of nursing ethics. (shrink)

The discourse around self-driving cars has been dominated by an emphasis on their potential to reduce the number of accidents. At the same time, proponents acknowledge that self-driving cars would inevitably be involved in fatal accidents where moral algorithms would decide the fate of those involved. This is a necessary trade-off, proponents suggest, in order to reap the benefits of this new technology. In this article, I engage this argument, demonstrating how an undue optimism and enthusiasm about this technology is (...) obscuring our ability to see what is at stake and explaining how moving beyond the dominant utilitarian framings around this technology opens up a space for both ethical inquiry and innovative design. I suggest that a genuine caring concern for the many lives lost in car accidents now and in the future—a concern that transcends false binary trade-offs and that recognizes the systemic biases and power structures that make certain groups more vulnerable than others—could serve as a starting point to rethink mobility, as it connects to the design of our cities, the well-being of our communities, and the future of our planet. (shrink)

Around the world the wealthy can get their lives extended while the poorget little basic medical help. Over the same years that the field ofbioethics has prospered and expanded, this disparity has increased.Reasons for the failure of bioethics to successfully address thishealth/wealth issue include its identification with the cognitiveand social authority of medicine; its gatekeeping behavior;its funding sources; its questionable use of ``principlism'' andits emphasis on crises and dilemmas to the neglect of ``housekeeping''issues. The work of most women in bioethics (...) rarely addresses thehealth/wealth issue; if it does, their work may be ignored, aswere the recommendations of Canadian feminists working under governmentgrants. To achieve equity in health care, the structure of both medicineand bioethics needs to be changed. Yet, since bioethicists generallyhave accepted the status quo, this seems unlikely to happen. (shrink)

Solving complex socio-technical problems, this paper claims, involves diverse knowledges (cognitive diversity), competing interests (social diversity), and pragmatism. To explain this view, this paper first explores two different cases: Canadian pulp and paper mill pollution and siting nuclear reactors in seismically sensitive areas of California. Solving such socio-technically complex problems involves cognitive diversity as well as social diversity and pragmatism. Cognitive diversity requires one to not only recognize relevant knowledges but also to assess their validity. Finally, it is suggested, integrating (...) the resultant set of diverse relevant and valid knowledges determines the parameters of the solution space for the problem. (shrink)