case study on ethical dilemma

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Case Studies

Case study discussion.

Below is a list of the case study articles that have been published in NIB , each with keywords, a set of discussion questions, and further resources. To search page contents with keywords, select "Control-F" from a PC, or "Command-F" from a Mac.

• Accommodating Religious Beliefs in the ICU: A Narrative Account of a Disputed Death
• When Ethics Consultation and Courts Collide: A Case of Compelled Treatment of a Mature Minor
• Advance Directives, Preemptive Suicide, and Emergency Medicine Decision Making
• Healing the Physician’s Story: A Case of Narrative Medicine and End-of-Life Care
• The Efficacy of Ethics Discernment in the Organizational Context: The Case of Post-Offer Nicotine Screening
• Can We Talk About Sex?
• Should We Tell Annie?: Preparing for Death at the Intersection of Parental Authority and Adolescent Autonomy
• A Case of Deceptive Mastectomy
• Do Everything
• Responding to the Refusal of Care in the Emergency Department
• I Don’t Know Why I Called You
• Undocumented and at the End of Life
• Dax’s Case Redux: When Comes the End of the Day?
• Desperately Seeking a Surrogate— For a Patient Lacking Decision-Making Capacity
• What to Say When: Responding to a Suicide Attempt in the Acute Care Setting
• Conversation and the Jehovah’s Witness Dying From Blood Loss
• Caregivers’ Role in Maternal-Fetal Conflict
• The Surgeon as Stakeholder: Making the Case Not to Operate
• The Enduring Case
• Military Health Care Dilemmas and Genetic Discrimination: A Family’s Experience with Whole Exome Sequencing
• Conflicting Values: A Case Study in Patient Choice and Caregiver Perspectives
• Ethical Dilemmas Relating to the Management of a Newborn with Down Syndrome and Severe Congenital Heart Disease in a Resource-Poor Setting
• System Failure: No Surgeon To Be Found
• Ethical Challenges in the Care of the Inpatient with Morbid Obesity
• A Life Below the Threshold? Examining Conflict Between Ethical Principles and Parental Values in Neonatal Treatment Decision Making
• The Clinical Bioethicist’s Role: Should We Aim to Relieve Suffering?
• To Enroll or Not to Enroll?: A Researcher Struggles with the Decision to Involve Study Participants in a Clinical Trial That Could Save Their Lives
• Sometimes Those Hoofbeats Are Zebras: A Narrative Analysis
• A Jehovah’s Witness Adolescent in the Labor and Delivery Unit: Should Patient and Parental Refusals of Blood Transfusions for Adolescents Be Honored?
• Reframing Medical Appropriateness: A Case Study Concerning the Use of Life-Sustaining Technologies for a Patient With Profoundly Diminished Quality of Life
• "We Didn't Consent to This"
• Screen Shots: When Patients and Families Publish Negative Health Care Narratives Online
• A Personal Narrative on Living and Dealing with Psychiatric Symptoms after DBS Surgery
• The Will Reconsidered: Hard Choices in Living Organ Donation
• Malleable Transplant Criteria: At What Cost?
• Responding to Requests for Aid-in-Dying: Rethinking the Role of Conscience
• Getting to the Heart of the Matter: Navigating Narrative Intersections in Ethics Consultation
• Speaking for Our Father
• Forcible Amputation in Delusional Patients: A Narrative Analysis of Decisional Capacity
• A Health Care Systems Approach to Improving Care for Seriously Ill Patients
• An Ethics of Unknowing: Discerning Ethical Patient-Provider Interactions in Clinical Decision-Making
• How Should Physicians Manage Neuro-prognosis with ECPR?
• The Ethics of Choosing a Surrogate Decision Maker When Equal-Priority Surrogates Disagree
• A Gay Epidemiologist and the DC Commission of Public Health AIDS Advisory Committee
• Shared Decision-Making in Palliative Care: A Maternalistic Approach
• Phantom Physicians and Medical Catfishing: A Narrative Ethics Approach to Ghost Surgery
• It Takes Time to Let Go
• An American’s Experience with End-of-Life Care in Japan: Comparing Brain Death, Limiting and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Interventions, and Healthcare Ethics Consultation Practices in Japan and the United States
• The Sword of King Solomon
• Appreciating the Dynamicity of Values at the End of Life: A Psychological and Ethical Analysis
• Serendipity and Social Justice: How Someone with a Physical Disability Succeeds in Clinical Bioethics
• The Right to Be Childfree
• Undisclosed Placebo Trials in Clinical Practice: Undercover Beneficence or Unwarranted Deception?
• What Do We Owe to Patients Who Leave Against Medical Advice? The Ethics of AMA Discharges?
•  "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Normative Function of Indirect Consent"
• "Parental Refusals of Blood Transfusions from COVID-19 Vaccinated Donors for Children Needing Cardiac Surgery"
• "Withdrawing Life Support After Attempted Suicide: A Case Study and Review of Ethical Consideration"

1. Accommodating Religious Beliefs in the ICU: A Narrative Account of a Disputed Death

Martin L. Smith, Anne Lederman Flamm

Abstract: Despite widespread acceptance in the United States of neurological criteria to determine death, clinicians encounter families who object, often on religious grounds, to the categorization of their loved ones as “brain dead.” The concept of “reasonable accommodation” of objections to brain death, promulgated in both state statutes and the bioethics literature, suggests the possibility of compromise between the family’s deeply held beliefs and the legal, professional and moral values otherwise directing clinicians to withdraw medical interventions. Relying on narrative to convey the experience of a family and clinical caregivers embroiled in this complex dilemma, the case analyzed here explores the practical challenges and moral ambiguities presented by the concept of reasonable accommodation. Clarifying the term’s meaning and boundaries, and identifying guidelines for its clinical implementation, could help to reduce uncertainty for both health care professionals and families and, thereby, the incremental moral distress such uncertainty creates.

Keywords: Brain death, clinical ethics, ethics consultation, reasonable accommodation, religious conflict

Link to Case on MUSE

Reflection Questions:

• How might have the nurses’ and physicians’ initial frank commentary about Sarah’s condition affected the family’s interpretation of the clinicians’ opinions later on in the care process?
• In what ways might the new hospital have provided support to Sarah’s family in order to avoid the religion vs. medicine standoff that eventually developed?
• How much patience are physicians obligated to have with family members who extensively question the medical decision-making process? Was the hospital staff correct in labeling Rebekah as “manipulative”?
• Is it ethically appropriate for financial considerations to affect the family’s decision-making? Why or why not? To what extent should the healthcare team discuss the financial impact of decisions with families?

Web Resources:

• New York State Department of Health Guidelines for Determining Brain Death. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/hospital_administrator/letters/2011/brain_death_guidelines.pdf
• Olick, RS, Braun, EA, and Potash, J. (2009). Accommodating Religious and Moral Objections to Neurological Death. The Journal of Clinical Ethics. Retrieved from: http://www.upstate.edu/bioethics/pdf/faculty/olick_accommodating-religious-and-moral-objections-to-neurological-death.pdf
• Breitowitz, YA. Jewish Medical Ethics: The Brain Death Controversy in Jewish Law. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved from: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/braindead.html

2. When Ethics Consultation and Courts Collide: A Case of Compelled Treatment of a Mature Minor

Jeffrey P. Spike

Abstract: A fourteen year old is diagnosed with aplastic anemia. The teen and his parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses. An ethics consult is called on the day of admission by an ethically sophisticated social worker and attending. The patient and his parents see this diagnosis as “a test of their faith.” The ethical analysis focuses on the mature minor doctrine, i.e. whether the teen has the capacity to make this decision. The hospital chooses to take the case to court, with a result that is at odds with the ethics consultation recommendations. Ethics was never deposed or otherwise invited to be involved with the hearing. Thus the larger question of the relation of ethics and law was brought into stark relief.

Keywords: Adolescent, Capacity, Child Neglect, Decision-making Capacity, Ethics Consultation, Informed Consent, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mature Minor, Religion, Religious Belief, Right to Refuse Treatment, Teen, Teenager

• What is the relationship between law and ethics? When they conflict, which should prevail?
• At one point, the author of this case study says, of trying to convince his young patient of the benefit of treatment: “…but that seemed coercive. In fact, far too many patients act out of fear and accept treatment that has virtually no choice of benefit.” In this case, where Luke would have greatly benefitted from treatment, where is the line to be drawn between thoroughly informing him and coercing him?
• Are there ever circumstances where it might be disadvantageous to have an ethics consultation?
• Anderson & Associates, P.C. (2015). Illinois Recognizes the “Mature Minor Doctrine” in Some Cases. Retrieved from: http://www.andersondivorcelawchicago.com/chicagodivorceattorney/2015/01/29/illinois-mature-minor-doctrine-states/

Pauley, M. (2011). National Health Care Decisions Day, Jehovah’s Witnesses & Mature Minors. Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog. Retrieved from: http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/04/14/national-health-care-decisions-day-jehovahs-witnesses-mature-minors/

• Jehovah’s Witnesses: The Surgical/Ethical Challenge. (1981). JW.org. Retrieved from: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/blood/jehovahs-witnesses-the-surgical-ethical-challenge/

3. Advance Directives, Preemptive Suicide, and Emergency Medicine Decision Making

Richard L. Heinrich, Marshall T. Morgan, Steven J. Rottman

Abstract: As the United States population ages, there is a growing group of aging, elderly, individuals who may consider "preemptive suicide"(Prado, 1998). Healthy aging patients who preemptively attempt to end their life by suicide and who have clearly expressed a desire not to have life -sustaining treatment present a clinical and public policy challenge. We describe the clinical, ethical, and medical-legal decision making issues that were raised in such a case that presented to an academic emergency department. We also review and evaluate a decision making process that emergency physicians confront when faced with such a challenging and unusual situation.

Keywords: Aging, Autonomy, Advance Directives, Emergency Department, Preemptive Suicide

• Can we rely on the perspective of a patient to trust that a logical decision about preemptive suicide is being made?
• In this case, the family supported the patient’s decision, and thus gave it more credence. When the patient and family disagree, which view should prevail?
• What could the medical team have done prior to providing treatment in order to clarify their patient’s DNR wishes?
• Suicide is currently illegal in the United States. Does the fact that it is illegal mean that it is wrong? Is there an ethical right to suicide, despite the fact that it is illegal?
• Gabbatt, A. (2009). Doctors acted legally in ‘living will’ suicide case. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/01/living-will-suicide-legal
• Tolchin, M. (1989). When long life is too much: suicide rises among elderly. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/when-long-life-is-too-much-suicide-rises-among-elderly.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
• Appleby, J. (2014). ‘Prophylactic’ Suicide. The New York Times, Sunday Review. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/prophylactic-suicide.html

4. Healing the Physician’s Story: A Case of Narrative Medicine and End-of-Life Care

Lori A. Roscoe

Abstract: Telling stories after a loved one’s death helps surviving family members to find meaning in the experience and share perceptions about whether the death was consistent with the deceased person’s values and preferences. Opportunities for physicians to evaluate the experience of a patient’s death and to expose the ethical concerns that care for the dying often raises are rare. Narrative medicine is a theoretical perspective that provides tools to extend the benefits of storytelling and narrative sense–making to physicians. This case study describes narrative writing workshops attended by physicians who care for dying patients. The narratives created revealed the physicians’ concerns about ethics and their emotional connection with patients. This case study demonstrates that even one–time reflective writing workshops might create important opportunities for physicians to evaluate their experiences with dying patients and families.

Keywords: Death and Dying, End–of–Life Issues, Healthcare Professionals, Narrative Inquiry, Stories, Storytelling

• This piece extensively discusses the effects that narrative medicine can have for a practicing physician. What potential effects can it have on the other side of the doctor-patient interaction?
• What does the Japanese physician’s story suggest about the role that culture plays in the doctor-patient experience?
• Is it possible for a physician to be truly empathetic with his or her patients? Why or why not?
• Should medical schools across the country include narrative medicine in their curriculum? Why or why not?
• Chen, PW. (2008). Stories in the Service of Making a Better Doctor. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/health/chen10-23.html?pagewanted=all
• Geisler, SL. (2006). The Value of Narrative Ethics to Medicine. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education. Retrieved from: http://www2.paeaonline.org/index.php?ht=action/GetDocumentAction/i/25232

5. The Efficacy of Ethics Discernment in the Organizational Context: The Case of Post-Offer Nicotine Screening

David M. Belde

Abstract: This article examines the efficacy of an ethics discernment process in the organizational context, a practice referred to in the paper as "mission due diligence." This type of ethics discernment is a structured process intended to awaken the ethical concerns that a particular issue raises within moral agents and to give voice, directly and indirectly, to those who will be impacted by, and responsible for, strategic decision-making. The efficacy of this particular ethics discernment practice is contingent upon several realities, including, but not limited to 1) the timing in which it is undertaken, 2) the degree of importance and relevance attributed to it, and 3) the skills of the person leading it. This case report examines how this process was used to highlight and address the ethical issues related to a new hiring policy, namely, a mandatory nicotine screening test for prospective employees in the healthcare context. Framed by the Bon Secours Virginia Health System hiring process, the author explores the importance of diligently focusing on ethical considerations in the organizational realm while still maintaining true to the virtues of the network.

Keywords: Ethics Discernment, Nicotine Screening, Organizational Ethics

• The author says, “Virtually all organizational ethics programs have to grapple with their overall importance and relevance within an organization.” How much authority should an ethics program within a hospital be afforded?
• If an employer can show sufficient empirical results for why a drug test is necessary, is it warranted? Do the sufficient reasons have to be related to the patients’ best interests?
• What are the different ways that Catholicism affects the ethical considerations in this case? What role does religion play in ethical consultations in general?
• Why does the author say balancing advocacy and inquiry are so important?
• Tucker, M & Salazar, L. (2014). Cotinine testing may violate the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), and state laws. Wells Fargo Insights. Retrieved from: https://wfis.wellsfargo.com/insights/clientadvisories/pages/cotininetestingmayviolateadaandotherlaws.aspx
• Our Values. Bons Secours Health System. Retrieved from: http://hso.bonsecours.com/about-us-our-mission-our-values.html
• Framework for Ethical Discernment. (2014). The Taylor University Center for Ethics. Retrieved from: http://ethics.taylor.edu/framework-for-ethical-discernment/

6. Can We Talk About Sex?

Mindy B. Statter

Abstract: A three–year–old female undergoes elective inguinal hernia repair and unexpectedly is found to have testes in the hernia sacs. A recommendation is made not to disclose the patient’s genotype to her mother. This case study addresses the ethical conflict of whether to disclose the patient’s male genotype to the parent that has been raising the child as female.

Keywords: Autonomy, Beneficence, Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Disclosure, Informed Consent, Intersex, Nonmaleficence

• In what—if any—circumstances is it ethically acceptable to withhold medical information about a child from the primary caretaker?
• Now that disclosure of a CAIS diagnosis is mandatory, what responsibility would a parent potentially have to override a doctor’s recommendations for gender maintenance?
• This case highlights the ethical risks and potential consequences later in life of not disclosing a patient’s CAIS diagnosis and treatment. Conversely, what would the consequences be for disclosing?
• Ignoring the medical precedents set now, do you believe the doctor in this case should have felt remorse for not disclosing the full nature of the girl’s condition to her mother? Would her mother have been equipped to handle that knowledge at that time?
• Dreger, AD. (1998). “Ambiguous Sex”—or Ambivalent Medicine? The Hastings Center Report. Retrieved from: http://www.isna.org/articles/ambivalent_medicine
• Intersex Conditions, Human Diversity Resources. UConn Health Center. http://uchc.libguides.com/humandiversity/intersex
• Georgiann Davis. "Normalizing Intersex: The Transformative Power of Stories." Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 5.2 (2015): 87-89. Project MUSE. Web. 8 Dec. 2015

7. Should We Tell Annie?: Preparing for Death at the Intersection of Parental Authority and Adolescent Autonomy

Erica K. Salter

Abstract: This case analysis examines the pediatric clinical ethics issues of adolescent autonomy and parental authority in medical decision–making. The case involves a dying adolescent whose parents request that the medical team withhold diagnosis and prognosis information from the patient. The analysis engages two related ethical questions: Should Annie be given information about her medical condition? And, who is the proper decision–maker in Annie’s case? Ultimately, four practical recommendations are offered.

Keywords: Adolescent, Decision-making Capacity, End of Life Care, Mature Minor, Parental Consent

• At what age do teens develop the ability to make autonomous decisions for themselves? What factors unique to adolescence might enhance or detract from this ability?
• What factors should be considered in deciding whether an adolescent should be given decision-making authority? Why?
• Is it ever appropriate for medical practitioners to lie to a child (or actively conceal the truth from a child)? Why or why not?
• Was it appropriate of the new attending doctor to call the palliative care physician? How could that miscommunication have been prevented?
• Hill, JB. (2012). Medical Decision Making by and on Behalf of Adolescents: Reconsidering First Principles. Faculty Publications. Retrieved from: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=faculty_publications
• Leonard, K. (2015). Case Sparks Debate About Teen Decision Making in Health. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/22/case-sparks-debate-about-teen-decision-making-in-health

8. A Case of Deceptive Mastectomy

Rebecca Volpe, Maria Baker, George F. Blackall, Gordon Kauffman, Michael J. Green

Abstract: This paper poses the question, “what are providers’ obligations to patients who lie?” This question is explored through the lens of a specific case: a 26–year–old woman who requests prophylactic bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction reports a significant and dramatic family history, but does not want to undergo genetic testing. Using a conversational–style discussion, the case is explored by a breast surgeon, genetic counselor/medical geneticist, clinical psychologist, chair of a hospital ethics committee and director of a clinical ethics consultation service.

Keywords: Clinical Ethics, Deceit, Lying, Provider/Patient Relationship, Providers’ Obligations

• Do you believe that the patient-doctor relationship should be reciprocal? Does the Hippocratic Oath mandate that doctors uphold their duties regardless of patient behavior?
• This case study asks us to consider typical signals that the doctors relied on when initially deciding whether or not to trust the patient. They cite qualities like her attractiveness, her maturity, and her husband’s support in order to explain their initial trust. Should they have been more skeptical in the beginning? Why were they so willing to believe the patient’s story at face value?
• Aside from the guilt that the surgeon himself would likely have felt, what might have been some potential consequences for the ethics team and hospital in general if the surgery had been successfully performed? What if it had gone badly?
• Polta, A. (2014). Lying to the Doctor. Center for Advancing Health, Prepared Patient Blog. Retrieved from: http://www.cfah.org/blog/2014/lying-to-the-doctor
• Ludwig, M & Burke, W. (2013). Physician-Patient Relationship. Ethics in Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine. Retrieved from: http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/physpt.html
• Observer Staff. (2000). What Should Plastic Surgeons Do When Crazy Patients Demand Work? Observer. Retrieved from: http://observer.com/2000/07/what-should-plastic-surgeons-do-when-crazy-patients-demand-work/

9. Do Everything

H. Rex Greene

Abstract: A 57–year–old with an incurable cancer suffered an abdominal catastrophe, putting him in the ICU, comatose with no chance of survival. His attending oncologist had only met him once and had no knowledge of his goals of care. Lacking an advance directive the staff turned to his family, who said, “Do everything.” This loaded statement was thought to be a demand for futile care even though it ultimately proved a reflection of their emotional response to a terrible, unanticipated event, not an irrational demand for useless care. A sympathetic exploration of the patient’s goals and expectations with his family using Buckman’s SPIKES format disclosed that their major concern was that he not die on his wife’s birthday. The family agreed to withdraw him from ventilator support the following day. Unraveling a medical conflict requires a sensitive process of shared decision–making based on a transparent process of clinical reasoning that synthesizes patient and family values with medical knowledge and ethical duties. Properly done, the outcome usually is a satisfactory experience for all concerned.

Keywords: Abandonment, Advance directives, Catastrophic Illness, Clinical Reasoning, Conflict Resolution, Decisional Capacity, Do Everything, Futility, Paternalism, Shared Decision Making, SPIKES, Substituted Judgment

• This case explains that responding appropriately to a request to “do everything” requires doctors to ensure that patients’ families “know the medical facts, delivered in a kind, caring fashion.” Sometimes, it can take many meetings over several days for the family to absorb the medical facts. How should decisions be made in the meantime?
• The conclusion of this case seems to reaffirm that emotion is more important than reason when approaching difficult conversations with patients’ families. Should emotion-based education and empathy training be offered in the modern medical school curriculum? Is it even possible to train physicians to be more emotionally intelligent?
• Why is the establishment of the goal of treatment so important to the unity of a patient, their family, and their doctor? What are the barriers to establishing goals of care?
• Baile, WF. et al. (2000). SPIKES—A Six Step Protocol for Delivering Bad News: Application to the Patient with Cancer. The Oncologist. Retrieved from: http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/5/4/302.full
• Medical Futility. (2007). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 362. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. Retrieved from: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Medical-Futility
• Enhancing Communication and Coordination of Care. (2013). Cardinal Glennon. Retrieved from: http://www.cardinalglennon.com/Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecardinalglennon%2ecom%2fDocuments%2femergency-medicine&FolderCTID=0x0120000161C93D9B68B34BA6E74A98204CE2A1

10. Responding to the Refusal of Care in the Emergency Department

Jennifer Nelson, Arvind Venkat, Moira Davenport

Abstract: The emergency department (ED) serves as the primary gateway for acute care and the source of health care of last resort. Emergency physicians are commonly expected to rapidly assess and treat patients with a variety of life–threatening conditions. However, patients do refuse recommended therapy, even when the consequences are significant morbidity and even mortality. This raises the ethical dilemma of how emergency physicians and ED staff can rapidly determine whether patient refusal of treatment recommendations is based on intact decision–making capacity and how to respond in an appropriate manner when the declining of necessary care by the patient is lacking a basis in informed judgment. This article presents a case that illustrates the ethical tensions raised by the refusal of life–sustaining care in the ED and how such situations can be approached in an ethically appropriate manner.

Keywords: Decision–making Capacity, Emergency Department, Emergency Physician, Informed Consent, Treatment Refusal

• Does coming to the Emergency Department constitute implied consent to treatment? Why would a patient come to the ED if not to receive potentially life-sustaining treatments at a physician’s recommendation?
• If it is evident that a patient lacks decision-making capacity, is it paternalistic to administer life-saving treatment even if the patient refuses?
• In this case, would it be ethically appropriate for the physicians to consult the patient’s family, in order to bring in one more agent of authority?
• Cooper, S. (2010). Taking No for an Answer—Refusal of Life-Sustaining Treatment. AMA Journal of Ethics/Virtual Mentor. Retrieved from: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2010/06/ccas2-1006.html
• ACEP Code of Ethics for Emergency Physicians. (2008). Retrieved from: https://www.acep.org/Clinical---Practice-Management/Code-of-Ethics-for-Emergency-Physicians/

11. I Don’t Know Why I Called You

Jeffrey S. Farroni, Colleen M. Gallagher

Abstract: This case study details a request from a patient family member who calls our service without an articulated ethical dilemma. The issue that arose involved the conflict between continuing further medical interventions versus transitioning to supportive or palliative care and transferring the patient home. Beyond the resolution of the ethical dilemma, this narrative illustrates an approach to ethics consultation that seeks practical resolution of ethical dilemmas in alignment with patient goals and values. Importantly, the family’s suffering is addressed through a relationship driven, humanistic approach that incorporates elements of compassion, empathy and dialog.

Keywords: End of life, Empathy, Relationships, Clinical Ethics

• How can healthcare providers and ethicists strike a balanced middle-ground between being too detached and too empathetic? Which side of this split should they err on? Why?
• In this case, how did the patient’s family’s expectations influence the decision-making of the ethicist and the doctors?
• How can an ethicist’s varied background bring new knowledge and insight to a collaborative ethical deliberation?
• Shelton, WN & White, BD. (2015). Realistic Goals and Expectations for Clinical Ethics Consultations: We Should Not Overstate What We Can Deliver. The American Journal of Bioethics. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15265161.2014.974773
• American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Clinical Ethics Task Force. Improving Competence in Clinical Ethics Consultation: A Learner’s Guide. Retrieved from: http://www-3.unipv.it/centrodibioetica/resources/Improving_Competence_in_Ethics.pdf

12. Undocumented and at the End of Life

Annette Mendola

Abstract: Three of the most contentious issues in contemporary American society—allocation of medical resources, end of life care, and immigration—converge when undocumented immigrant patients are facing the terminal phase of chronic illness. The lack of consistent, pragmatic policy in each of these spheres leaves us with little guidance for how to advocate for undocumented patients at the end of life. Limited resources and growing need compound the problem. Care for patients in this unfortunate situation should be grounded in clinical and economic reality as well as respect for the dignity of the individual to avoid exacerbating inequalities.

Keywords: Allocation of Resources, Dialysis, ESRD, End–of–Life Care, Undocumented Patients

• How does Henri’s lack of citizenship or permanent residence in the United States limit not only his access to, but his knowledge of, the full range of medical options available to him? Does this make him vulnerable, and therefore deserving of increased protections, in a way that other patients are not?
• Was it Henri’s right to refuse hospice, considering the lack of other options available? Why or why not?
• Should the ethics consulting team have made more of an effort to communicate to Henri that Lucia was no longer willing to be his caregiver? Why would this matter?
• Is a partial treatment of a severely ill patient worth the effort, or just a waste of time and resources? What is the apparent stance of the ethics committee on this question?
• Kimball, C. “End-of-Life Health Care Disparity: A Case Study”. Nursing Economics. Retrieved from: https://www.nursingeconomics.net/necfiles/news/End-Of-Life_Care_Kimball.pdf
• Ortega, AM. (2014). “Stay or Go? Terminally Ill Undocumented Immigrants Face Dilemma”. New America Media. Retrieved from: http://newamericamedia.org/2014/01/undocumented-and-dying-latinos-may-find-comfort-in-final-journey-home.php

13. Dax’s Case Redux: When Comes the End of the Day?

Ashley R. Hurst, Dea Mahanes, Mary Faith Marshall

Abstract: Forty years after Dax Cowart fought to have his voice heard regarding his medical treatment, patient autonomy and rights are at the heart of patient care today. Yet, despite its centrality in patient care, the tension between a severely burned patient’s right to stop treatment and the physician’s role in saving a life has not abated. As this case study explores, barriers remain to hearing and respecting a patient’s treatment decisions. Dismantling these barriers involves dispelling the myths that burn patients must grin and bear intense pain to recover and that a patient’s choice to discontinue treatment equals physician failure. Moreover, in these situations, sustained, direct engagement between physician and patient can reduce the moral distress of all involved and enable physicians to hear and better accept when a patient is calling for the end of the day.

Keywords: Dax Cowart, Ethics Consultation, Moral Distress, Palliative Care, Patient Autonomy

• Communication between a patient and his or her care team is crucial in cases like this. Why did the avenues of communication break down in this piece? What could have been done to improve the relationship between the patient and the medical team?
• What obligation did the physicians have to be visiting the patient and witnessing the implications of his wound care? If their behavior had been different, how might that have changed the course of treatment for the patient?
• Was the sheer number of people in the room for the patient’s first consult coercive? What could have been done differently to understand both the patient’s wishes and the team’s perspective earlier in the process?
• Does the possibility of a high quality of life post-treatment warrant or justify doctors’ prescribing painful treatment over a patient’s objections?
• “Dax’s Case” preview. (1984). Retrieved from: http://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/1630976
• Kavan, MG, Elsasser, GN, Barone, EJ. (2012). The Physician’s Role in Managing Acute Stress Disorder. Am Fam Physician. Retrieved from: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1001/p643.html
• Requests to Die: Non-Terminal Patients. Mhhe. Retrieved from: http://novella.mhhe.com/sites/dl/free/0078038456/1037408/Pen38456_Ch02.pdf

14. Desperately Seeking a Surrogate— For a Patient Lacking Decision-Making Capacity

Martin L. Smith, Catherine L. Luck

Abstract: Our hospital’s policy and procedures for “Patients Without Surrogates” provides for gradated safeguards for managing patients’ treatment and care when they lack decision–making capacity, have no advance directives, and no surrogate decision makers are available. The safeguards increase as clinical decisions become more significant and have greater consequences for the patient. The policy also directs social workers to engage in “rigorous efforts” to search for surrogates who can potentially provide substituted judgments for such patients. We describe and illustrate the policy, procedures, and kinds of expected rigorous efforts through our narration of an actual but disguised case for which we provided clinical ethics guidance and social work expertise. Our experience with and reflection on this case resulted in four recommendations we make for health care facilities and organizations that aim to provide quality care for their own patients without surrogates.

Keywords: Clinical Ethics, Decision–Making Capacity, End–of–Life Decisions, Ethics Committee, Ethics Consultation Service, Patients Without Surrogates, Rigorous Efforts, Social Work, Surrogate Decision Maker, Unbefriended Patient, Unrepresented Patient

• While this author cautions against using social media to determine a surrogate, do you think it could be a reliable method of determining a close relationship?
• Does your state allow non-family members to serve in the role of surrogate decision-maker?
• If there had been sufficient grounds for Sally to be Jacob’s surrogate, do you think she would have come to the same conclusions as Jacob’s brother? Could the process have been expedited, and yet be just as reliable?
• Stanford Hospitals and Clinics. (2009). Health Care Decisions for Patients Who Lack Capacity and Lack Surrogates. Retrieved from: http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/Stanford_Health_Care_Decisions_For_Patients_Who_Lack_Capacity_and_Surrogates_7_09.pdf
• Varma, S & Wendler, D. (2007). “Medical Decision Making for Patients Without Surrogates”. Arch Intern Med. Retrieved from: http://ogg.osu.edu/site_documents/sage/course3/wk8_varma.pdf

15. What to Say When: Responding to a Suicide Attempt in the Acute Care Setting

Arvind Venkat, Jonathan Drori

Abstract: Attempted suicide represents a personal tragedy for the patient and their loved ones and can be a challenge for acute care physicians. Medical professionals generally view it as their obligation to aggressively treat patients who are critically ill after a suicide attempt, on the presumption that a suicidal patient lacks decision making capacity from severe psychiatric impairment. However, physicians may be confronted by deliberative patient statements, advanced directives or surrogate decision makers who urge the withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining treatments based on the patient’s underlying medical condition or life experience. How acute care providers weigh these expressions of patient wishes versus their own views of beneficence, non–maleficence and professional integrity poses a significant ethical challenge. This article presents a case that exemplifies the medical and ethical tensions that can arise in treating a patient following a suicide attempt and how to approach their resolution.

Keywords: Advanced Directives, Critical Care, Life–sustaining Treatment, Suicide, Surrogate Decision Maker

• Can suicide ever be a rational, autonomous decision? Why or why not?
• How can patient/family relationships pose a challenge for doctors trying to establish the best course of action for a patient?
• How did the family’s perspective affect the patients’ treatment in this case? Was the outcome of their input positive or negative?
• In the absence of both a clear patient advance directive and familial knowledge of patient preferences, how should medical decisions be made? What did the doctors do in this case?

Web resources:

• Carrigan, CG & Lynch, DJ. (2003). Managing Suicide Attempts: Guidelines for the Primary Care Physician. Primary Care Comparnion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419387/
• Sokol, D et al. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in the acute setting: a framework for clinicians. BMJ. Retrieved from: http://www.medicalethicist.net/documents/Tattoo%20BMJ%20PDF.pdf
• Forster, PL & Wu, LH. Assessment and Treatment of Suicidal Patients in an Emergency Setting. Gateway Psychiatric Services. Retrieved from: https://www.gatewaypsychiatric.com/pdf/Assessment%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Suicidal%20Patients%20in%20an%20Emergency%20Setting.pdf

16. Conversation and the Jehovah’s Witness Dying From Blood Loss

D. Malcolm Shaner, Jateen Prema

Abstract: Religious belief can complicate the usual management of seriously ill patients when the patient is a Jehovah’s Witness and the treatment is a blood transfusion. This narrative highlights critical points in a discussion of two cases wherein the process to promote an exercise of free will also becomes an exercise for the ethics consultant and healthcare team. Despite a medical care program’s carefully considered additions to an electronic healthcare record, additional conversation, investigation, preparation, and an open mind are required. Helping conflicted family members and considering whether and in what context to contact the Jehovah’s Witness Hospital Liaison Committee complicates the approach.

Keywords: Blood Transfusion, Jehovah’s Witness, Religious Rights

• Consider the differences between the two cases with regard to how the hospital handled the patient requests. What did the hospital do well, and what could it have improved?
• In Case 1, what was the effect of attempting the surgery once the patient had changed his mind? How did that change influence the perspective of both the doctors and the patient’s mother?
• In Case 1, was the medical officer’s frankness with the patient appropriate, taking into consideration the beliefs that the patient already expressed?
• How did the doctors in Case 2 actively facilitate moral decision making on the part of the patient?
• Panico, ML et al. (2011). “When a Patient Refuses Life Saving Care”. Am J Kidney Dis. Retrieved from: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751273
• Robinson, BA. (2010). “Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (WTS) opposition to blood transfusions”. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness11.htm

17. Caregivers’ Role in Maternal-Fetal Conflict

Abstract: The case, which occurred in a public hospital in Turkey in 2005, exhibits a striking dilemma between a mother’s and her fetus’ interests. For a number of reasons, the mother refused to cooperate with the midwives and obstetrician in the process of giving birth, and wanted to leave the hospital. The care providers evaluated the case as a matter of maternal autonomy and asked the mother to give her consent to be discharged from the hospital, which she did despite the fact that her cervix was fully open. She left the hospital and gave birth shortly thereafter. Subsequently, the baby died two days later. In light of contemporary ethical principles, the mother’s competency could be debatable due to the physical and psychological conditions the mother confronted. Furthermore, protection of the fetus’ life should have been taken into account by the caregivers when making a decision concerning discharging of the mother.

Keywords: Ability to Consent, Autonomy, Beneficence, Decision Making Capacity, Ethical Dilemma, Fetal Beneficence, Fetal Rights, Maternal Autonomy, Maternal–Fetal Conflict, Pregnancy

• Did the mother have the right to demand to leave? Would your answer to this question change if discharging the mother endangered the fetus? Why or why not?
• Was the mother in a position to make an autonomous choice? Other than autonomous patient decision-making, are there models of decision-making that might have been considered in this case? How might they be applied?
• How could the care team have done better? Should a hospital have policies to help prevent or address such a situation? If so, what would these policies look like?
• Schetter, CD & Tanner, L. (2012). Anxiety, depression, and stress in pregnancy: Implication for mothers, children, research, and practice. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. Retrieved from: http://health.psych.ucla.edu/CDS/documents/DunkelSchetterTanner-2012COPsychiatry.pdf
• Post, LF. (1996). Bioethical Consideration of Maternal-Fetal Issues. Fordham Urban Law Journal. Retrieved from: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2171&context=ulj

18. The Surgeon as Stakeholder: Making the Case Not to Operate

Abstract: Surgeons are in a unique position, serving as gatekeepers to the operating room. They determine if operations are possible, are indicated, and have a reasonable risk–to–benefit profile. When an operation is indicated and the patient is amenable to it, the conversation between surgeon and patient is usually straightforward. On the other hand, when a patient’s co–morbidities substantially increase the risk of operative intervention, surgeons often question the utility of offering their services. These situations become immensely more difficult when patients have the expectation of being offered surgical treatment. This case describes the clinical encounter between an endocrine surgeon and an 83–year–old woman who has been incidentally found to have adrenal metastasis from melanoma. The patient wants an operation that the surgeon is reluctant to offer because of her frailty and high operative risk. The case focuses on the ethical dilemma that arises when a patient wants an operation that a surgeon does not want to perform.

Keywords: Metastatic Melanoma, Palliative Care, Respect for Autonomy, Shared Decision–Making, Surgical Ethics

• What reasons are acceptable for refusing to operate on a patient? Why?
• How should surgeons approach situations in which they are consulted for operative interventions that they do not want to provide?
• When surgeons think the risk of surgery is too great and not justified but patients think the risks are worthwhile, whose assessment should prevail? Why?
• Louden, K. (2015).“Risk Calculator Does Not Alter Surgeons’ Choice to Operate". Medscape. Retrieved from: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/852708
• Kasman, DL. (2004).“When is Medical Treatment Futile?: A Guide for Students, Residents, and Physicians." Journal of General Internal Medicine. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1492577/

19. The Enduring Case

Craig M. Nelson

Abstract: In clinical ethics an enduring case takes on a life of its own and comes to closure over a long period of time. This essay describes the evolution of such a case over a 1–year period. The case involves a 90–year old male patient with multiple chronic medical conditions who lacked decision–making capacity, was a resident of a long–term care facility, and did not have known previously expressed wishes regarding medical treatment. The ethics consultation initially revolved around this question: What method or process must be employed so that medical treatment decisions could be ethically reviewed and could include a shared decision–making process for Mr. Smith? This case analysis describes the evolution of this case and argues that the good of the patient must remain paramount throughout an enduring case.

Keywords: Ethical Appropriateness, Ethical Process, Moral Community, Treatment Planning

• What kinds of processes might help an incapacitated patient’s voice be heard, especially when the patient’s values were never formally documented?
• Why might it be important to try to give voice to an incapacitated patient’s values?
• What went well with the process in this clinical ethics consultation? Might there be opportunities for improving the processes deployed in this case, and if so, what might they be?
• Ten Myths About Decision-Making Capacity: A Report by the Natioanl Ethics Committee Of the Veterans Health Administration. (2002). Retrieved from: http://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/necrpts/nec_report_20020201_ten_myths_about_dmc.pdf
• California Advance Health Care Directive Probate Code Section 4701. Retrieved from: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PROB&division=4.7.&title=&part=2.&chapter=2.&article=

20. Military Health Care Dilemmas and Genetic Discrimination: A Family’s Experience with Whole Exome Sequencing

Benjamin M. Helm, Katherine Langley, Brooke B. Spangler, Samantha A. Schrier Vergano

Abstract: Whole–exome sequencing (WES) has increased our ability to analyze large parts of the human genome, bringing with it a plethora of ethical, legal, and social implications. A topic dominating discussion of WES is identification of “secondary findings" (SFs), defined as the identification of risk in an asymptomatic individual unrelated to the indication for the test. SFs can have considerable psychosocial impact on patients and families, and patients with an SF may have concerns regarding genomic privacy and genetic discrimination. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) currently excludes protections for members of the military. This may cause concern in military members and families regarding genetic discrimination when considering genetic testing. In this report, we discuss a case involving a patient and family in which a secondary finding was discovered by WES. The family members have careers in the U.S. military, and a risk–predisposing condition could negatively affect employment. While beneficial medical management changes were made, the information placed exceptional stress on the family, who were forced to navigate career–sensitive “extra–medical" issues, to consider the impacts of uncovering risk–predisposition, and to manage the privacy of their genetic information. We highlight how information obtained from WES may collide with these issues and emphasize the importance of genetic counseling for anyone undergoing WES.

Keywords: Genetic Discrimination, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), Genetic Testing, Incidental Findings, Military, Secondary Findings

• It is clear that this type of genetic testing is revolutionizing diagnoses, but it comes with ethical concerns. Do the advantages of WES outweigh the possible disadvantages? Why or why not?
• Do you agree that pre–test conversations should be required in every scenario? Why or why not?
• When the SCN5A gene mutation was found, should the father have told his superiors? Why or why not?
• The SCN5A mutation is probabilistic–not all individuals who have the mutation will develop symptoms. However for some patients, the only presenting feature is sudden cardiac death. What are some reasons patients might have for—and against—wanting this information?
• National Human Genome Research Institute. (2014a). Fact sheet: Genetic discrimination. Retrieved from: http://www.genome.gov/10002077
• Majewski, J. et al., (2011). What Can Exome Sequencing Do For You? Journal of Medical Genetics. Retrieved from: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/749695_1
• Collins, F. (2007). The threat of genetic discrimination to the promise of personality medicine. Testimony to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. Retrieved from: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/110/3-14-07/CollinsTestimony.pdf

21. Conflicting Values: A Case Study in Patient Choice and Caregiver Perspectives

Margot Eves, Phoebe Day Danziger, Ruth M. Farrell, Cristie M. Cole

Abstract: Decisions related to births in the “gray zone" of periviability are particularly challenging. Despite published management guidelines, clinicians and families struggle to negotiate care management plans. Stakeholders must reconcile conflicting values in the context of evolving circumstances with a high degree of uncertainty within a short time period. Even skilled clinicians may struggle to guide the patient in making value–laden decisions without imposing their own values. Exploring the experiences of one pregnant woman and her caregivers, this case study highlights how bias may undermine caregivers’ ability to meet their obligation to enhance patient autonomy and the moral distress they may experience when a patient’s values do not align with their own. Management strategies to mitigate the potential impact of bias and related moral distress are identified. The authors then describe one management strategy used in this case, facilitated ethics consultation, which is focused on thoughtful consideration of the patient’s perspective.

Keywords: Bias, Ethics Consultation, “Gray Zone", Moral Distress, Perspective–Taking

• How can we distinguish between concerns that reflect bias versus concerns that reflect legitimate differences in values?
• Does it matter if a patient’s choices reflect bias, or do patients have the right to have their decisions respected even if they are based on potentially unsubstantiated biases or beliefs?
• Given the controversial nature of the patient’s viewpoint regarding life with disabilities, did the providers have an obligation to try to mitigate the patient’s bias? Why or why not?
• What are some of the ways that the providers could have tried to address the patient’s biases regarding life with a disability? For example, should the patient have been offered the opportunity to speak to parents of children with disabilities, specifically those disabilities more likely to be a result of complications from prematurity? Would it be ethically permissible to require that she do so?
• Are there other, more effective ways to support professionals who take care of patients whose values and choices differ so significantly from their own?
• Lyerly, AD. (2008). Reframing neutral counseling. Virtual Mentor. Retrieved from: http://virtualmentor.ama–assn.org/2008/10/ccas3–0810.html
• Guttmacher Institute. (2015). State policies in brief: An overview of abortion laws. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

22. Ethical Dilemmas Relating to the Management of a Newborn with Down Syndrome and Severe Congenital Heart Disease in a Resource-Poor Setting

Ama K. Edwin, Frank Edwin, Summer J. McGee

Abstract: Decision-making regarding treatment for newborns with disabilities in resource-poor settings is a diffi cult process that can put parents and caregivers in confl ict. Despite several guidelines that have helped to clarify some of the medical decision-making in Ghana, there is still no clear consensus on the specifi c moral criteria to be used. This article presents the case of a mother who expressed her wish that her child with Down syndrome should not have been resuscitated at birth. It explores the ethical issues at stake in both her misgivings about the resuscitation and her unwillingness to consider surgical repair of an atrioventricular (AV) canal defect. Knowing that children born with Down syndrome are able to pursue life’s goals, should our treatment of complete AV canal defect in such children be considered morally obligatory, even in resource-poor settings like Ghana?

Keywords: Atrioventricular Septal Defect, Down Syndrome, Ethical Duty, Newborn, Withholding Treatment

• What is the difference between a substantiated concern and one that reflects bias? How can providers assess the difference?
• The mother’s views about the relative lack of value of a person with disabilities are controversial and seem to reflect an unfair or unfounded bias. In light of this, did the provider have an obligation to try to address the mother’s bias?
• If health care providers had an obligation to try to mitigate or address the mother’s bias, how should they have attempted to do so? Should the mother have been required to speak to other parents of children with disabilities?

23. System Failure: No Surgeon To Be Found

Carol Bayley

Abstract: A woman admitted to the emergency room of a hospital died because no surgeon could be found to stop the bleeding from injuries she sustained in a farming accident. The case points to ethical shortcomings both institutionally and professionally. The call system is inadequate, and physician fears of being sued or insufficiently compensated contribute to the overall problem. Potential responses include the institutional equivalent of a root cause analysis and an understanding of the pressures brought to bear on physicians to treat emergencies.

Keywords: Emergency Call, Institutional Ethics, John Glaser, Organizational Ethics, Root Cause Analysis

• Do you think a physician has an ethical obligation to try to help a patient who will otherwise die, even when the patient’s problem is not within the physician’s specialty? If so, how do you ground this obligation? If not, why not?
• If physicians have such an obligation, what ought they to do when they face barriers to fulfilling it?
• People often see themselves in the best light; it’s very human to see one’s self favorably, and to try to explain away one’s own responsibility when an error occurs. In light of this natural tendency, what structures could be set into place to help physicians and other stakeholders take responsibility in these types of situations?

24. A Life Below the Threshold?: Examining Conflict Between Ethical Principles and Parental Values in Neonatal Treatment Decision Making

Thomas V. Cunningham

Abstract: Three common ethical principles for establishing the limits of parental authority in pediatric treatment decision–making are the harm principle, the principle of best interest, and the threshold view. This paper considers how these principles apply to a case of a premature neonate with multiple significant co-morbidities whose mother wanted all possible treatments, and whose health care providers wondered whether it would be ethically permissible to allow him to die comfortably despite her wishes. Whether and how these principles help in understanding what was morally right for the child is questioned. The paper concludes that the principles were of some value in understanding the moral geography of the case; however, this case reveals that common bioethical principles for medical decision–making are problematically value-laden because they are inconsistent with the widespread moral value of medical vitalism.

Keywords: Harm Principle, Best Interests, Threshold View, Neonatal Decision Making, Values, Medical Vitalism

• How should the ethicist think through the relationship between apparently competing bioethical views in particular clinical circumstances?
• Should there be a competency evaluation for parents, guardians, surrogates, or other proxy medical decision makers?
• Should society develop policies to limit health care in circumstances where there is an appreciable likelihood of extremely poor outcomes?

25. Ethical Challenges in the Care of the Inpatient with Morbid Obesity

Paul L. Schneider, Zhaoping Li

Abstract: Objective: To provide a thorough analysis of the range of ethical concerns that may present in relation to the care of the morbidly obese inpatient over the course of several years of care. Methods: A narrative of the patient’s complex medical care is given, with particular attention to the recommendations of three separate ethics committee consultations that were sought by his health care providers. An ethical analysis of the relevant issues is given within the Principles of Biomedical Ethics framework, highlighting the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non–maleficence, and justice. Results: The case study presents a patient with morbid obesity, obesity hypoventilation syndrome, and numerous ICU admissions. The first ethics consultation was requested regarding the permissibility of forcing bariatric surgery on him against his will. The second consultation was regarding a request by nursing staff to no longer attempt to mobilize him. The third was regarding the patient’s refusal to be discharged. Conclusions and Recommendations: The care of inpatients with morbid obesity presents a unique set of practical and ethical challenges to health care personnel. A disciplined approach to ethical analysis using the Principles of Biomedical Ethics framework may be helpful in dealing with these challenges. Recommendations for improvement are made for the individual and local settings, as well as nationally.

Keywords: Autonomy, Beneficence, Ethics, Justice, Morbid Obesity, Non–Maleficence, Paternalism, Professionalism

• Sometimes in health care there is a mismatch between a units’ ideal admission criteria and the actual patients admitted. Is it appropriate to try to help health care workers feel more comfortable with patients who are not ideal in some way? If so, are there limits to this approach?
• A “hard paternalism” approach in this case might have involved placing this patient on a locked unit so that he could not have restaurant deliveries. Given his dire clinical circumstances, could this have been ethically supported?
• Do you agree that providers were overly reliant on the principle of autonomy in allowing this patient to be poorly compliant with dietary therapy in the on–campus nursing home? If not, can you suggest alternate rationales?

26. The Clinical Bioethicist’s Role: Should We Aim to Relieve Suffering?

Deborah L. Kasman

Abstract: Bioethics consultants arrive at their profession from a variety of prior experiences (e.g., as physicians, nurses, or social workers), yet all clarify ethical issues in the care of patients. The integrated bioethicist’s role often extends beyond case consultations. This case presents a young person suffering a prolonged and gruesome end–of–life journey, which raised questions regarding the bioethicist’s role in alleviating suffering as part of the health care team. The case is used to illuminate forms of suffering experienced by patients, families, and health care providers. The question arises as to whether it is in the ethicist’s jurisdiction to alleviate suffering, and if the answer is “yes,” then whose suffering should be addressed? The discussion addresses one approach taken by an integrated bioethicist toward promoting delivery of ethical and compassionate care to the patient.

Keywords: Clinical Ethics Consultation, Healing, Meaning in Death, Provider Well–Being, Suffering

• Is relief of suffering part of a clinical ethics consultation? Should it be? Why or why not?
• How do you respond to suffering? What are your most productive responses? Unproductive responses?
• Should a clinical ethicist be involved in clinical care without maintaining direct patient contact? If patients/families refuse ethics involvement, what role can the clinical ethicist play in promoting ethical medical decision–making?
• When a clinical ethicist is also trained as a licensed health provider (e.g., physician, nurse, chaplain, or social worker), can prior clinical experience affect the ethicist’s role in responding to suffering? Can this be an advantage, a hindrance, or both?

27. To Enroll or Not to Enroll?: A Researcher Struggles with the Decision to Involve Study Participants in a Clinical Trial That Could Save Their Lives

Roberto Abadie

Abstract: Hundreds of thousands of clinical trials are conducted annually around the world, working to further scientific knowledge and expand medical treatment. At the same time, clinical trials also present novel challenges to researchers who have access to large pools of research participants and are routinely approached by pharmaceutical companies seeking to recruit subjects for clinical trials. This case study discusses the ethical dilemmas faced by a community health investigator who received an invitation to enroll people who inject drugs (PWID) into a clinical trial of a drug that promised a new treatment option for Hepatitis C. The author elaborates on the ethical tensions that he confronted between “doing good” and “avoiding harm. The paper suggests that issues of distributive justice should also be considered, particularly when the drugs being tested might eventually command prices that place them out of reach of the population enrolled in the trial. This case does not attempt to provide an ethical road map to assist researchers in similar circumstances, but rather to illustrate some of the considerations involved in making a decision about whether or not to participate in clinical trials research.

Keywords: Beneficence, Clinical Trials, Enrollment, Justice, Non-Maleficence

• Since they were originally formulated a few decades ago, the principle of respect for autonomy seems to have gained priority in detriment of the principle of justice. With drug prices reaching exorbitant levels—more than eighty thousand dollars for a full HCV treatment—placing access beyond the reach of many, shouldn’t bioethicists reconsider the way we think about justice?
• The principle of beneficence establishes the requirement of a social good, as one of if its main criteria. But drug prices seem to benefit the pharmaceutical industry while depriving many of much needed drugs. With this in mind, how do you think we should interpret this principle?
• Imagine you or somebody you know has the opportunity to participate in a clinical trial. What elements would you need in order to make an informed decision? And an ethical one?

28. Sometimes Those Hoofbeats Are Zebras: A Narrative Analysis

Abstract: The case of BB, an 11-year-old girl who was hospitalized because of sudden odd seizure-like symptoms and catatonic affect, highlights several ethical issues and communication problems. The correct diagnosis was initially missed, partly because physicians are trained to think of the most common explanation for a patient’s symptoms; the medical education truism “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras” was not helpful in BB’s case. The common habit of medical professionals to not revisit a diagnosis once one is established also led to missed opportunities to provide appropriate care for this young patient. The difficulty nurses and/or family members have in questioning a diagnosis and treatment plan are also discussed.

Keywords: Clinical Ethics, Ethical Focus, Case Study, Communication, Medical Error, Moral Distress, Two-Challenge Rule

• Hospitals are generally reluctant to admit patients known to have problematic behavior or unknown diagnoses, yet in this case, having a new physician on her case was the key to making an accurate diagnosis. How might transfers between medical facilities be reimagined to improve patient care, rather than being seen as “dumping” of undesirable problematic patients and families?
• What interventions or changes in protocol might empower nurses and family members to productively question a physician’s diagnosis and treatment plan for a patient?

29. A Jehovah’s Witness Adolescent in the Labor and Delivery Unit: Should Patient and Parental Refusals of Blood Transfusions for Adolescents Be Honored?

Johan Christiaan Bester, Martin Smith, Cynthia Griggins

Abstract: A 15-year-old was admitted to the labor and delivery unit for induction of a 41-week-gestation pregnancy. Her parents, members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the patient, who had been studying the religion but had not yet been baptized, were adamant that no blood transfusions would be accepted even if a life-threatening hemorrhage were to occur. In our analysis, we examine the underlying ethical conflict and issues raised by this case. We considered two important ethical questions in analyzing the dilemma: first, whether adolescents are capable of providing autonomous and authentic refusals for lifesaving interventions; and second, whether parents can refuse such interventions for their adolescent children based on their religious beliefs. We provided justifications for not considering the adolescent’s refusal as autonomous and for overruling the parental refusal, concluding that there was ethical support for providing potentially lifesaving transfusions should they become clinically indicated. We also suggested strategies to avoid blood loss and the need for transfusions in order to respect the stated values and preferences of the patient and her family to the greatest degree possible. In order to protect the privacy of the patient and her family, details in this case have been changed and no identifiable information has been used.

Keywords: Best Interests, Blood Transfusions, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Principlism, Religious Conflict

• The authors have defended a principle that it should generally be presumed that adolescents lack the necessary decision–making capacity to provide autonomous refusals for life–saving treatments, unless convincing evidence to rebut this presumptionis present. Do you agree with this principle, and if so, why? What would count as convincing evidence? If not, what reasons can you provide for dismissing this principle?
• In the article a threshold is described for parental decision–making. Beyond that threshold, it is the duty of clinicians to challenge the parental decision, and the duty of the state to overrule the parental decision. Do you agree that the threshold to overrule parental decision–making was reached in this case? Why or why not? What might have changed your view?
• Different jurisdictions have reached different conclusions in cases regarding the authority of adolescents to refuse life–saving treatments. States also have different stances on the “mature minor” rule. How does the neurodevelopment and cognitive development evidence the authors briefly discuss in the article influence your thinking on these issues, and specifically on whether states should have a “mature minor” rule and how they should interpret and apply it?

30. Reframing Medical Appropriateness: A Case Study Concerning the Use of Life-Sustaining Technologies for a Patient With Profoundly Diminished Quality of Life

Colleen M. Gallagher, Elijah Weber, Nisha Rathi

Abstract: This case study considers the clinical ethics issues of medical appropriateness and quality of life for patients who are critically ill. The case involves a terminally ill cancer patient with a profoundly diminished quality of life and an extremely poor prognosis; his spouse desires to bring him home, where she will arrange to keep him alive for as long as possible via life-sustaining interventions. The analysis engages with the complicated notion of medical appropriateness, both in general and as it pertains to life-sustaining interventions in a critical care setting, and considers the ethical implications of the various ways in which one might understand this concept. It also addresses the significance of quality-of-life determinations, emphasizing the role of individualized values in determining the importance of quality of life for clinical decision-making. The discussion concludes with a description of the two strategies employed by the ethics team in helping to alleviate the medical team’s concerns about this case.

Keywords: Case Study, Method, Clinical Ethics Focus

• Is the goal of keeping a terminally ill patient, with a profoundly diminished quality of life, alive for as long as possible via life-sustaining technologies a medically appropriate goal of care?
• Is “medical appropriateness” a useful term for conducting an ethical analysis of a particular case?
• What is the ethical significance of a profoundly diminished quality of life for determining goals of care for a particular patient?
• Do quality of life considerations ever outweigh patient or surrogate decision-maker preferences regarding the ethical justifiability of continuing with life-sustaining interventions?

31. "We Didn't Consent to This"

Shalini Dalal, Jessica A. Moore, Colleen M. Gallagher

Abstract: Patients and their families have identified the need for ongoing and effective communication as one of the important aspects of medical care, especially when the cessation of disease–modifying therapies is being considered at the end–of–life (EOL). Despite recognizing that this communication is extremely important, clinicians are uneasy and find themselves inadequately trained to “break bad news” and manage emotional responses from the patient/family. The inherent difficulties in accurately predicting prognosis and discussing potential complications make these conversations even more challenging. In most circumstances, patients and their families want to know the truth about their disease and what will be done to make them feel better, and to receive enough information to help them choose a course of action. For many terminally ill patients and their families who have elected to transfer to the palliative care unit (PCU) for EOL care, the assumption is that most of these conversations have already been held, and the ongoing focus becomes managing these patients’ physical and psychological sources of distress, validating their and their families’ emotional responses and preparing them for what is to come. This case report illustrates the need for cultural understanding and clear communication among physicians, members of the clinical team, and patients and their family members.

Keywords: Communication, Cultural Competence, End–of–Life, Palliative Care

• What can/should one do to determine if communication of a poor prognosis has been provided in a manner and to the extent that the patient or surrogate decision–maker wants and allows him/her to make a fully informed decision? How can one go about exploring the extent of patient/family understanding and goals/expectations? What would you do if you discovered that the poor prognosis has not been explained in enough detail to facilitate informed decision–making?
• What resources are available in your institution to help health care providers improve upon their cultural competence with the patient populations seen most often in your area? What resources are available to assist in the care, real–time, of patients from various faith traditions and cultures in your hospital?
• Have you experienced a situation similar to the one presented here? What did you do in that case or would you do in future cases to improve communication and outcomes? Is this a personal practice, or has it been implemented as a “standard practice/ process” in your group, when applicable?

32. "Screen Shots: When Patients and Families Publish Negative Health Care Narratives Online"

Marleen Eijkholt, Jane Jankowski, Marilyn Fisher

Abstract: Social media sites and their relationship to health care is a subject of intense debate. Common discussions regarding social media address patient privacy, or e-professionalism. This case study explores the tensions that arise for health care providers when negative patient statements surface in social media and blog forums. Recognizing that patients and families often find relief in sharing personal illness narratives, we contemplate if, and how, individual health care professionals and institutions should address complaints aired in public, unmoderated media. Our discussion begins by presenting a case of a family blogging on the Internet to share grievances (to deidentify the case, we have changed some details). Next, we offer an exploration of the impact on health care delivery when professionals become aware of specific criticisms published online. Strategies for managing electronic criticisms are then proposed. We conclude by proposing a novel E-THICS approach to address negative patient expressions via electronic word of mouth (eWOM). Our examination of this evolving issue focuses on maintaining satisfactory relationships between health care providers and patients/families when dealing with health care narratives published in open online media.

Keywords: Care-Ethics, Ethics, Internet, Negative Comments, Online, Patient Blogs, Social Media

• What strategies does your institution offer to deal with publicly displayed negative comments from patients?
• To what extent should institutional support be offered to HCPs in interacting with negative eWOM?
• Should providers communicate their distress to a patient (or to family members) about negative expressions in narrative formats, and if so, how can this be done?

33. "A Personal Narrative on Living and Dealing with Psychiatric Symptoms after DBS Surgery"

Frédéricand Gilbert, John Noel M. Viaña

Abstract: Although deep brain stimulation (DBS) may result in dramatic motor improvement in people with Parkinson's disease (PD), it has been correlated with a number of postoperative psychiatric side effects. We report a case of a person with PD experiencing depression and hypomania following DBS surgery. We provide a detailed report of the patient's personal experiences dealing with and managing these psychiatric side effects for three years. Providing a personal narrative focusing on detailed patient subjective experiences complements reports that give insight into the short- and long-term effects of DBS on established psychiatric measures and neurologic activity. But, most importantly, such a qualitative approach provides prospective patients and clinicians with a broader ethical picture of real-life challenges faced and coping strategies employed by PD patients treated with DBS who are experiencing psychiatric adverse events. This case study reinforces the ethical need to disclose the potential risk of harm to prospective patients as well as the importance of establishing a multidisciplinary postoperative supportive group.

Keywords: Deep Brain Stimulation, Identity, Neuropsychiatric Effects, Parkinson's Disease, Self, Side Effects

• What obligations do DBS providers and researchers have to offer follow-up care aimed at addressing potential personality and behavior changes that can cause patients distress?
• What are the trade-offs between the motor ben-efts of DBS and the potential psychological harm induced by treatments?
• Should decision aids be developed to help patients weigh the pros and cons? What would you put into such a decision aid?
• Should family members have a greater voice in DBS decision-making than in ordinary healthcare decision-making given the potential impact of DBS on personality and behavior?

34. "The Will Reconsidered: Hard Choices in Living Organ Donation"

Robert M. Guerin, Elizabeth O’Toole, Barbara Daly

Abstract: In the following article, we illustrate an interview between a living donor advocate and a potential living organ donor in which the donor faced a hard choice: the reasons to donate and the reasons not to donate were equally persuasive. In the discussion that follows, we analyze the act of willing, what differenti-ates coercion and willing, and how the case study highlights a different, but by no means rare, instance in which donors feel paralyzed by the choice at hand. In such cases, we suspect that donor advocates either do not approve the potential donor for transplantation or simply remain neutral. But we think that this approach benefits neither the donor nor the recipient. We conclude this study with recommendations for living donor advocates, providing questions that might solicit donors’ deeper values and suggesting that in these situations donors may benefit from additional time for reflection.

Keywords: Coercion, Donor Advocate, Hard Choice, Living Donor, Self, Willing, Persuasive Communication, Shared Decision Making, Competing Values

35. "Malleable Transplant Criteria: At What Cost?"

Angel Alsina, Rebekah Apple, Nyingi Kemmer and James P. Orlowski

Abstract: An 18-year-old male who had been diagnosed at age 7 with a rare, progressive liver disease was referred to the transplant center and received a transplant, even though he did not meet the center’s criteria for a patient with hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS). Complications required relisting the patient urgently, but he eventually fully recovered; total hospital charges for his treatment exceeded $5 million. Reflection upon the case resulted in analysis of two ethical questions: primarily, clinician obligation to balance the provision of actuarially fair health care to society against the healing of a single patient; secondarily, the effects of malleable transplant criteria on trust in the patient selection process. We affirmed that physicians should not be principally responsible for justifying financial investment to society or for upholding beneficence beyond the individual physician and patient relationship in order to contain costs. We concluded, however, that such instances, when combined with manipulation of transplant center criteria, pose a potential threat to public trust. We therefore suggested that transplant centers maintain independent ethics committees to review such cases.

Keywords: Beneficence, Organ Donation, Organ Transplant, Rationing, Transplant Criteria, Ethics Committees, Hospital Charges, Moral Obligations, Hepatopulmonary Syndrome

• The authors mention rationing and affirm the tenet that it is unethical to withhold care because of exorbitant costs. What are the ethical implications of this practice, given that the United States has acknowledged the current system as unsustainable? Would you defend providing heroic, expensive care to every patient, regardless of the effect such behavior would have on the future of health care?
• The authors noted the difference between the allocation of organs and patient selection. A number of ethical principles are applied to donation and transplantation, and they often contradict each other. Is it possible to reconcile utilitarianism and deontology? What other principles collided in this case, and how could these conflicts have been avoided?
• A recent study in JAMA found that “prices of labor and goods, including pharmaceuticals and devices, and administrative costs appeared to be the main drivers” of high health care costs in the United States (Papanicolas, Woskie, & Jha, 2018, p. 1024). Growing attention is being paid to the income of nonclinical health care professionals, and Commins (2018) noted that compensation for nonclinician chief executive officers in over 20 US health systems almost doubled between 2005 and 2015. How much of an issue is compensation for nonclinicians, given the rising amount of health care spending in the country? Would adjustments to administrative costs necessarily result in more money being spent on patient care?

36. "Responding to Requests for Aid-in-Dying: Rethinking the Role of Conscience"

Elizabeth R. Brassfield, Manisha Mishra, and Mara Buchbinder

Abstract: This case study illustrates the complex role that a physician’s conscience can play in end-of-life care. We examine a case from Vermont in which a terminally ill patient requests aid-in-dying from her primary care physician under the state’s “Patient Choice and Control at End of Life” Act (Act 39). The physician feels conflicted: she is opposed to prescribing death-hastening medication but does not want to abandon her patient. Much of the medical ethics literature on conscience focuses on whether health care professionals should be permitted to abstain from providing morally contested medical services. Our analysis highlights the interplay of conflicting values that inform the physician’s engagement with aid-in-dying, demonstrating that the issue is often more nuanced than the question of whether or not a physician can (or should) opt out.

Keywords: Conscience; End-of-Life Care; Medical Ethics; Nonabandonment; Patient-Provider Relationship; Physician Aid-in-Dying/Physician-Assisted Suicide; Terminal Illness

• How does Dr. Jones’s response to Mary challenge conventional bioethical views of conscientious objection?
• What are the limits of a commitment to nonabandonment?
• Given a more robust understanding of the role of conscience in medical care, what form, if any, should protections for conscience take?

37. "Getting to the Heart of the Matter: Navigating Narrative Intersections in Ethics Consultation"

Leslie A. Kuhnel

Abstract: Ethics consultants can apply a narrative ethics approach to address ethical challenges that arise in critical situations. This approach recognizes how those involved in the narrative make sense of, keep faith with, and try on new identities and new understanding of their stories. This case study explores the ways in which the stories of patient, provider, and clinical ethics consultant intersect, and considers how the organic nature of the narrative ethics approach allows ethics consultants to navigate the stories of multiple stakeholders as they grapple with complex health care decisions. This essay also suggests that clinical ethics consultants applying the lens of narrative ethics have an obligation to approach consultations with courage, professional humility, intellectual curiosity, and an appreciation for the narratives of as many of the stakeholders as possible (including one’s own).

Keywords: Ethics Consultation, Intersecting Stories, Narrative Ethics

Discussion Questions:

• When have you experienced making sense, keeping faith, and trying on in your own personal or professional health care encounters?
• What narrative traps have you experienced in the course of clinical ethics consultation?
• How has your own personal narrative shaped your perceptions of this case?

38. "Speaking for Our Father"

Nico Nortjé

Abstract: A living will is a document in which an individual can communicate his or her health care choices to loved ones in the event that he or she is unable to do so directly. Many surrogate decision-makers use living wills as guides; however, the existence of such documents does not entirely relieve them of their burden. Surrogate decision-makers often need to consider the impact of the personal and family burdens entailed by their decisions, and the stress accompanying these burdens regularly creates high levels of anxiety and depression. This stress can be exacerbated when two surrogate decisionmakers are at loggerheads as to the best way forward. This case study illustrates the effects of stress accompanying disagreement among surrogate decision-makers—here, the patient’s adult sons—and demonstrates that a process of listening can help the bioethicist identify the values that are important to the patient and, consequently, to the surrogate as well, and use these values to help address the issue.

Keywords: Ethics, Intensive Care Unit, Living Will, Medical Power of Attorney, Surrogate Decision-Making

• Have you experienced similar cases where parties disagreed as to what was best for the patient? What did you do?
• Do you think it is better for surrogate decisionmakers to have leeway in interpreting the wishes of a patient, or should they have explicit instructions?
• There may be disagreement and tension within the health care team as to the best way forward. How can you assist team members in presenting a unified message to the family?

39. "Forcible Amputation in Delusional Patients: A Narrative Analysis of Decisional Capacity"

Lori A. Roscoe, David P. Schenck, Joel L. Eisenberg

Abstract: This case study concerns the predicaments faced by two women who each had been advised by her physicians to have a gangrenous foot amputated to prevent the potentially fatal spread of infection. In both cases, the determination of the patients' decisional capacity was a critical component in judging whether or not to honor their medical treatment decisions. The communicative complexity of navigating a double bind, a situation in which a person confronts a choice between two undesirable courses of action, is also discussed. The patients in these cases had no medically appropriate choice that also respected other valued outcomes, such as independence, a sense of dignity, or control over one's destiny. Taken together, these cases raise issues about the context-specific meaning of decisional capacity and its role in informed consent.

Keywords: Decisional Capacity, Double Bind, Amputation, Communication

• Under what circumstances might a decision to amputate over the patient's objections be appropriate?
• Under what circumstances can a delusional or cognitively impaired patient give informed consent for medical treatment?
• Suppose the patient was not delusional but nonetheless believed that merely washing the wound with soap and water would make it better. Would it then be ethical to perform the amputation against her will? What role does rationality play in determining competence and giving informed consent?
• How can a patient's wishes be acknowledged in a plan for treatment, even if she or he is deemed to lack decisional capacity?

40. "A Health Care Systems Approach to Improving Care for Seriously Ill Patients"

Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Jill Lowery, Virginia Ashby Sharpe, Kenneth A. Berkowitz

Abstract: Health care systems can go beyond advance care planning to create mechanisms for eliciting and documenting the goals of care and life-sustaining treatment decisions of patients with serious life-limiting illnesses. These systems can help ensure that patients receive care that is consistent with their values and preferences. We describe a case in which even though a patient with a serious illness had completed an advance directive and had discussed preferences with family, clinicians failed to identify the patient's authentic preferences for life-sustaining treatment. We offer a stepwise framework for communication with seriously ill patients and describe a systems approach to transforming the process of eliciting, documenting, and honoring patients' life-sustaining treatment preferences in the U. S. Veterans Health Administration.

Keywords: Advance Care Planning, Communication, End-of-Life Care

41. "An Ethics of Unknowing: Discerning Ethical Patient-Provider Interactions in Clinical Decision-Making"

Abstract: There is an irreducible amount of uncertainty in clinical decision-making. Both health care providers and patients experience anxiety elicited by clinical uncertainty, and this can lead to missed opportunities for healthy shared decision-making. In order to improve the patient-provider relationship and the ethical qualities of decision-making, the provider first needs to recognize where his/her "unknowing" exists. This article presents a model for a unique ethics of unknowing by identifying three levels at which the provider's knowledge or lack thereof impacts clinical decision-making. The model illuminates ethical choices that providers can make to promote healthy patient-provider relationships. The means by which an ethics of unknowing informs shared decision-making in patient care will be exemplified through a case study of one patient's encounters with several physicians while making difficult decisions throughout her breast cancer journey.

Keywords: Clinical Ethics, Uncertainty, Epistemology, Shared-Decision Making, Patient-Provider Relationship, Patient Care, Medical Decision-Making, Breast Cancer

42. "How Should Physicians Manage Neuro-prognosis with ECPR?"

Ian J. McCurry, Jason Han, Andrew Courtwright

Abstract: Rapidly advancing technologies in the field of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) have presented a new challenge in accurate neuroprognostication following cardiac arrest. Determination of brain state informs the prognostic picture and allows providers to begin effective communication regarding likelihood of meaningful neurological recovery as defined by patients or family members. The evolving role of sedation during ECPR and its impacts on ethical tension in decision-making is reviewed. Work surrounding the advancing field of neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest and hypothermia is summarized and implications of premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are discussed. Advances that improve predictive value for neurological recovery are utilized in affirming and discussing the implications for end-of-life wishes of individuals in the setting of intensive resuscitative therapies.

Keywords: End Of Life, Resuscitation, Ethics, Critical Care, ECMO

43. "The Ethics of Choosing a Surrogate Decision Maker When Equal-Priority Surrogates Disagree"

Matthew Shea

Abstract: When decisionally incapable patients need a surrogate to make medical decisions for them, sometimes the patient has not appointed a healthcare agent and there is intractable disagreement among potential surrogates of equal priority, legal rank, or relation to the patient (e.g., child vs. child, sibling vs. sibling). There is no ethical, legal, or professional consensus about how to identify the appropriate surrogate in such circumstances. This article presents a case study involving an elderly female patient whose four children disagree about whether to continue life-sustaining treatment for their mother, along with an ethical analysis of various strategies for selecting the appropriate surrogate in cases of conflicting equal-rank family members. It critically examines three different strategies—chance, majority rules, and quality of relationship with the patient—and defends the third approach.

Keywords: Surrogate Decision Making, Equal-Priority Surrogates, Family Disagreement, Conflict Resolution, Substituted Judgment, Clinical Ethics, Ethics Consultation

44. "A Gay Epidemiologist and the DC Commission of Public Health AIDS Advisory Committee"

Steven S. Coughlin, Paul Mann, and Bruce Jennings

Abstract: Based upon the lead author's deep personal and professional experience, this case narrative illustrates the importance of engagement between public health practitioners and members of affected populations and their advocates. The case underscores the need to build strong coalitions to address serious public health and social issues. It also illustrates how decisions about control groups in research raise ethical issues. In addition, the case illustrates the reality that public health and social services are sometimes inadequate in the face of dire circumstances. Justice in public health has both a distributive aspect (how to allocate limited resources and distribute potential benefits as fairly as possible) and a procedural dimension (ensuring public participation, especially of those most affected). Frameworks for public health ethics, which post-date the events detailed in the autobiographical case narrative, highlight both distributive justice and procedural justice.

Keywords: African Americans, AIDS, HIV, Community Prevention, Prevention, Public Health, Social Justice

45. "Shared Decision-Making in Palliative Care: A Maternalistic Approach"

Laura Specker Sullivan, Mary Adler, Joshua Arenth, Shelly Ozark, and Leigh Vaughan

Abstract: During goals of care conversations, palliative care clinicians help patients and families determine priorities of care and align medical care with those priorities. The style and methods of communicating with families and negotiating a care plan can range from paternalistic to entirely patient driven. In this paper, we describe a case in which the palliative care clinician approached decision-making using a paradigm that is intuitive to many clinicians and which seems conceptually sound, but which has not been fully explored in the bioethics literature. This paradigm, termed maternalism, allows the clinician to direct decision-making within a relationship such that best interests and autonomy are mutually reinforced, thus reflecting relational autonomy as opposed to individual autonomy. We explore whether this method is appropriate in this case and explain how it captures significant ethical features of the case that might be missed by other approaches.

Keywords: Shared Decision-Making, Palliative Care, End of Life, Paternalism, Relational Autonomy

46. "Phantom Physicians and Medical Catfishing: A Narrative Ethics Approach to Ghost Surgery"

Saljooq M. Asif

Abstract: The concerns raised by ghost surgery, an unethical practice in which someone other than the surgeon who obtains consent performs an operative procedure without the patient’s knowledge, have long been ignored by bioethics and other related disciplines. Indeed, ghost surgery is neither tracked nor studied in the United States, and the practice itself remains underreported. Ghost surgery represents a corporeal transgression as well as a relational rift: what was communicated by physicians is rendered null and void, and the surgical narrative that patients thought they knew is disrobed as a lie and revealed to be a catfish. In order to combat this practice and prevent any form of medical catfishing, physicians must guarantee effective communication and transparency and view themselves as storytellers alongside their patients. By following such a framework, physicians can ideally end the simulation and suture an ethic of accountability within a co-constructed narrative.

Keywords: Ghost Surgery, Narrative Ethics, Accountability, Catfishing, Medical Harm

47. "It Takes Time to Let Go"

Tiffany Meyer, Laura Walther-Broussard, Nico Nortjé

Abstract: Futile or nonbeneficial treatment is often a source of contention between care teams and family members of ICU patients. This narrative describes such a case at a cancer center. In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the psychosocial team had to act as a bridge between a patient's surrogate decision maker and the care team. In light of COVID-19 visitor restrictions, the psychosocial team, the surrogate/family, and the care team had to respectfully work towards what was best for the patient.

Keywords: Nonbeneficial treatment, COVID-19, Psychosocial team, Values, Goals of Care

48. "An American’s Experience with End-of-Life Care in Japan: Comparing Brain Death, Limiting and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Interventions, and Healthcare Ethics Consultation Practices in Japan and the United States"

Alexander A. Kon, Keiichiro Yamamoto, Eisuke Nakazawa, Reina Ozeki-Hayashi, Akira Akabayashi

Abstract: American and Japanese laws, customs, and practices in end-of-life decision-making differ significantly. We present a case with which one of the authors was involved to illustrate some of the key legal and cultural differences in the declaration of brain death, limiting and withdrawing life-prolonging interventions, and healthcare ethics consultation practices. The analysis presented facilitates understanding of similarities and differences between Japanese and American healthcare ethics specifically in regards to end-of-life care. Further, the analysis provides insights that can aid in developing policies and practices in regions where multiple cultures coexist.

Keywords: Brain Death, Organ Transplantation, Withholding Treatment, Japan, Ethics Consultation

49. "The Sword of King Solomon"

Maria Susana Ciruzzi

Abstract: Conjoined twin pregnancies are one of the greatest dilemmas we face in healthcare practice. Thanks to scientific knowledge and evolution, technology and the higher level of wealth in our society, conjoined twins have a chance to survive, albeit with the risk of major consequences on their lifespan and quality of life. Particularly, in the case of newborns with extreme prematurity or congenital malformations, special care must be taken in the use of treatments that offer little to no benefit. This is especially the case with procedures and techniques of unproven efficacy that could create unfounded expectations and hopes in parents and health professionals. It is within this conceptual framework that the author presents a case submitted to a bioethics committee at a pediatric hospital in a Latin American metropolis and analyzes the ethical challenges posed to the treating team and the consensual approach determined by the team.

Keywords: Conjoined Twins, Parental Decision Making, Do No Harm Principle, Ethical Dilemma, Quality of Life

50. "Appreciating the Dynamicity of Values at the End of Life: A Psychological and Ethical Analysis"

Austin Burns, Natalie Hardy & Nico Nortjé

Abstract: It can be difficult for families to accept when loved ones experience a change in saliency of values due to serious illness and inevitable death. When patients lose decision-making capacity, family members often refuse to withdraw care and insist on the continuation of non-beneficial treatment. Through a joint ethical and psychological analysis, this case study examines the narrative of a husband and wife, wed for over 50 years, and how the patient’s values, his life’s story, and the wife’s interpretation of his preferences were reconciled to achieve a resolution that respected the patient’s autonomy and previously expressed wishes.

Keywords: Ethics, Anticipatory Grief, Serious Illness, Decision-Making, Values

51. "Serendipity and Social Justice: How Someone with a Physical Disability Succeeds in Clinical Bioethics"

Kevin T. Mintz

Abstract: Trainees with disabilities in health-related professions are often subjected to structural ableism in medicine: the discriminatory manifestation of lowered expectations towards people with disabilities by medical professionals. In this case study, I reflect on my experiences as the first individual with significant disabilities to be offered a postdoctoral fellowship in clinical bioethics at the National Institutes of Health. I focus on the following question: What arrangements need to be in place in order for someone with my level of disability to thrive as a clinical bioethicist? By telling my story, I show how the process of accommodating trainees with disabilities often requires creative problem-solving and a considerable amount of institutional resources. I also describe the team-based method that my mentors and I developed to enable me to complete rotations on the NIH’s bioethics consultation service. If more trainees with disabilities are to succeed in clinical bioethics trainee programs, the field will have to grapple with how to develop an infrastructure for providing disability-related support across training programs. This article is the beginning of a dialogue about how to build such an infrastructure.

52. "The Right to Be Childfree"

Andrea Eisenberg & Abram L. Brummett

Abstract: In this manuscript, we start with a real life account of an Ob/Gyn experience with a young patient from the childfree movement requesting permanent sterilization. A narrative ethics approach invites the reader to experience the encounter in an immersive way for this growing issue. This approach allows readers to reflect on their reaction to the patient and consider how that can affect other patient encounters. Additionally, it explores the stigma these young patients encounter making a permanent decision to never have children. In the commentary, we explore the ethical issues in this case including why we question the permanent decision to refrain from having children. We also discuss informed consent and patient education along with the various approaches to physician-patient relationships with an emphasis on shared decision making, which allows space for both patient and physician to question and reason through their health decisions.

Keywords: Childfree, Permanent Sterilization, Shared Decision Making, Regret, Narrative Ethics

53. "Undisclosed Placebo Trials in Clinical Practice: Undercover Beneficence or Unwarranted Deception?"

Daniel Edward Callies

Abstract: A placebo is an intervention that is believed to lack specific pharmacological or physiological efficacy for a patient’s condition. While placebo-controlled trials are considered the gold standard when it comes to researching and testing new pharmacological treatments, the use of placebos in clinical practice is more controversial. The focus of this case study is an undisclosed placebo trial used as an attempt to diagnose a patient’s complex and unusual symptomology. In this case, the placebo was used not just as a treatment, but as a diagnostic intervention in order to determine the best course of treatment for a patient. Could the deceptive use of a placebo be justified in clinical practice on the grounds of beneficence?

Keywords: Placebo, Beneficence, Deception, Trust, Disclosure

54. " What Do We Owe to Patients Who Leave Against Medical Advice? The Ethics of AMA Discharges?"

Leenoy Hendizadeh, Paula Goodman-Crews, Jeannette Martin, Eli Weber

Abstract:  Discharges against medical advice (AMA) make up a significant number of hospital discharges in the United States, and often involve vulnerable patients who struggle to obtain adequate medical care. Unfortunately, much of the AMA discharge process focuses on absolving the medical center of liability for what happens to these patients once they leave the acute setting. Comparatively little attention is paid to the ethical obligations of the medical team once an informed decision to leave the acute care setting AMA has been made. Via a case narrative, we offer an ethical framework that we believe can help guide an ethically defensible AMA discharge process. By emphasizing our duty to provide the best care possible under the circumstances, we contend, our ethical obligations to promote the patient’s best interests can still be met despite their decision to leave the acute setting against medical advice.

Keywords:  Beneficence, Narrative Ethics, Case Study, AMA Discharges, Shared Decision-Making

  Link to Case on MUSE

55. "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Normative Function of Indirect Consent"

Joanna Smolenski

Abstract:  In this case study, I consider Mr. A, a Jehovah's Witness with chronic vertebral osteomyelitis in need of surgical debridement. Prior to proceeding to the OR, he was unwilling either to explicitly consent to or refuse blood transfusion, while indicating he was open to transfusion intraoperatively, if the team judged it necessary. Ethics was consulted to determine if it would be morally justifiable for the team to proceed with blood transfusion during the course of surgery without Mr. A's documented consent to being transfused. I argue that in this case, what might be termed indirect consent—namely, delegating decision-making regarding some possible course of action without explicitly consenting to the course of action itself—may be sufficient for discharging the clinician's ethical obligation to obtain consent. Identifying information has been changed or omitted to protect patient confidentiality.

Keywords:  Blood Transfusions, Jehovah's Witnesses, Informed Consent, Indirect Consent, Self-Sovereignty

56. "Parental Refusals of Blood Transfusions from COVID-19 Vaccinated Donors for Children Needing Cardiac Surgery"

Daniel H. Kim, Emily Berkman, Jonna D. Clark, Nabiha H. Saifee, Douglas S. Diekema, Mithya Lewis-Newby

Abstract: There is a growing trend of refusal of blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors. We highlight three cases where parents have refused blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors on behalf of their children in the setting of congenital cardiac surgery. These families have also requested accommodations such as explicit identification of blood from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, directed donation from a COVID-19 unvaccinated family member, or use of a non-standard blood supplier. We address the ethical challenges posed by these issues. We describe the current screening and safety processes for standard blood donation and explore the importance of donor anonymity and challenges with directed donation and non-standard blood suppliers. We present an ethical framework using the Best Interest Standard, the Zone of Parental Discretion, and the Harm Principle when considering these refusals. Finally, we provide recommendations for how to approach these requests as they potentially become more commonplace in pediatrics.

Keywords:  Medical Ethics, Critical Care, Pediatrics, Innovation, Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Catheterization

57. “Withdrawing Life Support After Attempted Suicide: A Case Study and Review of Ethical Consideration"

David A. Oxman & Benjamin Richter

Abstract: Ethical questions surrounding withdrawal of life support can be complex. When life support therapies are the result of a suicide attempt, the potential ethical issues take on another dimension. Duties and principles that normally guide clinicians’ actions as caregivers may not apply as easily. We present a case of attempted suicide in which decisions surrounding withdrawal of life support provoked conflict between a patient’s family and the medical team caring for him. We highlight the major unresolved philosophical questions and contradictory normative values about suicide that underlie this conflict. Finally, we show how these considerations were practically applied to this particular case.

Keywords: Medical Ethics, Critical Care, Life Support Therapies, Suicide

Doha Declaration

Education for justice.

• Agenda Day 1
• Agenda Day 2
• Agenda Day 3
• Agenda Day 4
• Registration
• Breakout Sessions for Primary and Secondary Level
• Breakout Sessions for Tertiary Level
• E4J Youth Competition
• India - Lockdown Learners
• Chuka, Break the Silence
• The Online Zoo
• I would like a community where ...
• Staying safe online
• Let's be respectful online
• We can all be heroes
• Respect for all
• We all have rights
• A mosaic of differences
• The right thing to do
• Solving ethical dilemmas
• UNODC-UNESCO Guide for Policymakers
• UNODC-UNESCO Handbooks for Teachers
• Justice Accelerators
• Introduction
• Organized Crime
• Trafficking in Persons & Smuggling of Migrants
• Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Reform
• Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice & SDGs
• UN Congress on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
• Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
• Conference of the Parties to UNTOC
• Conference of the States Parties to UNCAC
• Rules for Simulating Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Bodies
• Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
• Engage with Us
• Contact Us about MUN
• Conferences Supporting E4J
• Cyberstrike
• Play for Integrity
• Running out of Time
• Zorbs Reloaded
• Developing a Rationale for Using the Video
• Previewing the Anti-Corruption Video
• Viewing the Video with a Purpose
• Post-viewing Activities
• Previewing the Firearms Video
• Rationale for Using the Video
• Previewing the Human Trafficking Video
• Previewing the Organized Crime Video
• Previewing the Video
• Criminal Justice & Crime Prevention
• Corruption & Integrity
• Human Trafficking & Migrant Smuggling
• Firearms Trafficking
• Terrorism & Violent Extremism
• Introduction & Learning Outcomes
• Corruption - Baseline Definition
• Effects of Corruption
• Deeper Meanings of Corruption
• Measuring Corruption
• Possible Class Structure
• Core Reading
• Advanced Reading
• Student Assessment
• Additional Teaching Tools
• Guidelines for Stand-Alone Course
• Appendix: How Corruption Affects the SDGs
• What is Governance?
• What is Good Governance?
• Corruption and Bad Governance
• Governance Reforms and Anti-Corruption
• Guidelines for Stand-alone Course
• Corruption and Democracy
• Corruption and Authoritarian Systems
• Hybrid Systems and Syndromes of Corruption
• The Deep Democratization Approach
• Political Parties and Political Finance
• Political Institution-building as a Means to Counter Corruption
• Manifestations and Consequences of Public Sector Corruption
• Causes of Public Sector Corruption
• Theories that Explain Corruption
• Corruption in Public Procurement
• Corruption in State-Owned Enterprises
• Responses to Public Sector Corruption
• Preventing Public Sector Corruption
• Forms & Manifestations of Private Sector Corruption
• Consequences of Private Sector Corruption
• Causes of Private Sector Corruption
• Responses to Private Sector Corruption
• Preventing Private Sector Corruption
• Collective Action & Public-Private Partnerships against Corruption
• Transparency as a Precondition
• Detection Mechanisms - Auditing and Reporting
• Whistle-blowing Systems and Protections
• Investigation of Corruption
• Introduction and Learning Outcomes
• Brief background on the human rights system
• Overview of the corruption-human rights nexus
• Impact of corruption on specific human rights
• Approaches to assessing the corruption-human rights nexus
• Human-rights based approach
• Defining sex, gender and gender mainstreaming
• Gender differences in corruption
• Theories explaining the gender–corruption nexus
• Gendered impacts of corruption
• Anti-corruption and gender mainstreaming
• Manifestations of corruption in education
• Costs of corruption in education
• Causes of corruption in education
• Fighting corruption in education
• Core terms and concepts
• The role of citizens in fighting corruption
• The role, risks and challenges of CSOs fighting corruption
• The role of the media in fighting corruption
• Access to information: a condition for citizen participation
• ICT as a tool for citizen participation in anti-corruption efforts
• Government obligations to ensure citizen participation in anti-corruption efforts
• Teaching Guide
• Brief History of Terrorism
• 19th Century Terrorism
• League of Nations & Terrorism
• United Nations & Terrorism
• Terrorist Victimization
• Exercises & Case Studies
• Radicalization & Violent Extremism
• Preventing & Countering Violent Extremism
• Drivers of Violent Extremism
• International Approaches to PVE &CVE
• Regional & Multilateral Approaches
• Defining Rule of Law
• UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
• International Cooperation & UN CT Strategy
• Legal Sources & UN CT Strategy
• Regional & National Approaches
• International Legal Frameworks
• International Human Rights Law
• International Humanitarian Law
• International Refugee Law
• Current Challenges to International Legal Framework
• Defining Terrorism
• Criminal Justice Responses
• Treaty-based Crimes of Terrorism
• Core International Crimes
• International Courts and Tribunals
• African Region
• Inter-American Region
• Asian Region
• European Region
• Middle East & Gulf Regions
• Core Principles of IHL
• Categorization of Armed Conflict
• Classification of Persons
• IHL, Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism
• Relationship between IHL & intern. human rights law
• Limitations Permitted by Human Rights Law
• Derogation during Public Emergency
• Examples of States of Emergency & Derogations
• International Human Rights Instruments
• Regional Human Rights Instruments
• Extra-territorial Application of Right to Life
• Arbitrary Deprivation of Life
• Death Penalty
• Enforced Disappearances
• Armed Conflict Context
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Convention against Torture et al.
• International Legal Framework
• Key Contemporary Issues
• Investigative Phase
• Trial & Sentencing Phase
• Armed Conflict
• Case Studies
• Special Investigative Techniques
• Surveillance & Interception of Communications
• Privacy & Intelligence Gathering in Armed Conflict
• Accountability & Oversight of Intelligence Gathering
• Principle of Non-Discrimination
• Freedom of Religion
• Freedom of Expression
• Freedom of Assembly
• Freedom of Association
• Fundamental Freedoms
• Definition of 'Victim'
• Effects of Terrorism
• Access to Justice
• Recognition of the Victim
• Human Rights Instruments
• Criminal Justice Mechanisms
• Instruments for Victims of Terrorism
• National Approaches
• Key Challenges in Securing Reparation
• Topic 1. Contemporary issues relating to conditions conducive both to the spread of terrorism and the rule of law
• Topic 2. Contemporary issues relating to the right to life
• Topic 3. Contemporary issues relating to foreign terrorist fighters
• Topic 4. Contemporary issues relating to non-discrimination and fundamental freedoms
• Module 16: Linkages between Organized Crime and Terrorism
• Thematic Areas
• Content Breakdown
• Module Adaptation & Design Guidelines
• Teaching Methods
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introducing United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ vis-à-vis International Law
• 2. Scope of United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ
• 3. United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ in Operation
• 1. Definition of Crime Prevention
• 2. Key Crime Prevention Typologies
• 2. (cont.) Tonry & Farrington’s Typology
• 3. Crime Problem-Solving Approaches
• 4. What Works
• United Nations Entities
• Regional Crime Prevention Councils/Institutions
• Key Clearinghouses
• Systematic Reviews
• 1. Introduction to International Standards & Norms
• 2. Identifying the Need for Legal Aid
• 3. Key Components of the Right of Access to Legal Aid
• 4. Access to Legal Aid for Those with Specific Needs
• 5. Models for Governing, Administering and Funding Legal Aid
• 6. Models for Delivering Legal Aid Services
• 7. Roles and Responsibilities of Legal Aid Providers
• 8. Quality Assurance and Legal Aid Services
• 1. Context for Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials
• 2. Legal Framework
• 3. General Principles of Use of Force in Law Enforcement
• 4. Use of Firearms
• 5. Use of “Less-Lethal” Weapons
• 6. Protection of Especially Vulnerable Groups
• 7. Use of Force during Assemblies
• 1. Policing in democracies & need for accountability, integrity, oversight
• 2. Key mechanisms & actors in police accountability, oversight
• 3. Crosscutting & contemporary issues in police accountability
• 1. Introducing Aims of Punishment, Imprisonment & Prison Reform
• 2. Current Trends, Challenges & Human Rights
• 3. Towards Humane Prisons & Alternative Sanctions
• 1. Aims and Significance of Alternatives to Imprisonment
• 2. Justifying Punishment in the Community
• 3. Pretrial Alternatives
• 4. Post Trial Alternatives
• 5. Evaluating Alternatives
• 1. Concept, Values and Origin of Restorative Justice
• 2. Overview of Restorative Justice Processes
• 3. How Cost Effective is Restorative Justice?
• 4. Issues in Implementing Restorative Justice
• 1. Gender-Based Discrimination & Women in Conflict with the Law
• 2. Vulnerabilities of Girls in Conflict with the Law
• 3. Discrimination and Violence against LGBTI Individuals
• 4. Gender Diversity in Criminal Justice Workforce
• 1. Ending Violence against Women
• 2. Human Rights Approaches to Violence against Women
• 3. Who Has Rights in this Situation?
• 4. What about the Men?
• 5. Local, Regional & Global Solutions to Violence against Women & Girls
• 1. Understanding the Concept of Victims of Crime
• 2. Impact of Crime, including Trauma
• 3. Right of Victims to Adequate Response to their Needs
• 4. Collecting Victim Data
• 5. Victims and their Participation in Criminal Justice Process
• 6. Victim Services: Institutional and Non-Governmental Organizations
• 7. Outlook on Current Developments Regarding Victims
• 8. Victims of Crime and International Law
• 1. The Many Forms of Violence against Children
• 2. The Impact of Violence on Children
• 3. States' Obligations to Prevent VAC and Protect Child Victims
• 4. Improving the Prevention of Violence against Children
• 5. Improving the Criminal Justice Response to VAC
• 6. Addressing Violence against Children within the Justice System
• 1. The Role of the Justice System
• 2. Convention on the Rights of the Child & International Legal Framework on Children's Rights
• 3. Justice for Children
• 4. Justice for Children in Conflict with the Law
• 5. Realizing Justice for Children
• 1a. Judicial Independence as Fundamental Value of Rule of Law & of Constitutionalism
• 1b. Main Factors Aimed at Securing Judicial Independence
• 2a. Public Prosecutors as ‘Gate Keepers’ of Criminal Justice
• 2b. Institutional and Functional Role of Prosecutors
• 2c. Other Factors Affecting the Role of Prosecutors
• Basics of Computing
• Global Connectivity and Technology Usage Trends
• Cybercrime in Brief
• Cybercrime Trends
• Cybercrime Prevention
• Offences against computer data and systems
• Computer-related offences
• Content-related offences
• The Role of Cybercrime Law
• Harmonization of Laws
• International and Regional Instruments
• International Human Rights and Cybercrime Law
• Digital Evidence
• Digital Forensics
• Standards and Best Practices for Digital Forensics
• Reporting Cybercrime
• Who Conducts Cybercrime Investigations?
• Obstacles to Cybercrime Investigations
• Knowledge Management
• Legal and Ethical Obligations
• Handling of Digital Evidence
• Digital Evidence Admissibility
• Sovereignty and Jurisdiction
• Formal International Cooperation Mechanisms
• Informal International Cooperation Mechanisms
• Data Retention, Preservation and Access
• Challenges Relating to Extraterritorial Evidence
• National Capacity and International Cooperation
• Internet Governance
• Cybersecurity Strategies: Basic Features
• National Cybersecurity Strategies
• International Cooperation on Cybersecurity Matters
• Cybersecurity Posture
• Assets, Vulnerabilities and Threats
• Vulnerability Disclosure
• Cybersecurity Measures and Usability
• Situational Crime Prevention
• Incident Detection, Response, Recovery & Preparedness
• Privacy: What it is and Why it is Important
• Privacy and Security
• Cybercrime that Compromises Privacy
• Data Protection Legislation
• Data Breach Notification Laws
• Enforcement of Privacy and Data Protection Laws
• Intellectual Property: What it is
• Types of Intellectual Property
• Causes for Cyber-Enabled Copyright & Trademark Offences
• Protection & Prevention Efforts
• Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment
• Cyberbullying
• Gender-Based Interpersonal Cybercrime
• Interpersonal Cybercrime Prevention
• Cyber Organized Crime: What is it?
• Conceptualizing Organized Crime & Defining Actors Involved
• Criminal Groups Engaging in Cyber Organized Crime
• Cyber Organized Crime Activities
• Preventing & Countering Cyber Organized Crime
• Cyberespionage
• Cyberterrorism
• Cyberwarfare
• Information Warfare, Disinformation & Electoral Fraud
• Responses to Cyberinterventions
• Framing the Issue of Firearms
• Direct Impact of Firearms
• Indirect Impacts of Firearms on States or Communities
• International and National Responses
• Typology and Classification of Firearms
• Common Firearms Types
• 'Other' Types of Firearms
• Parts and Components
• History of the Legitimate Arms Market
• Need for a Legitimate Market
• Key Actors in the Legitimate Market
• Authorized & Unauthorized Arms Transfers
• Illegal Firearms in Social, Cultural & Political Context
• Supply, Demand & Criminal Motivations
• Larger Scale Firearms Trafficking Activities
• Smaller Scale Trafficking Activities
• Sources of Illicit Firearms
• Consequences of Illicit Markets
• International Public Law & Transnational Law
• International Instruments with Global Outreach
• Commonalities, Differences & Complementarity between Global Instruments
• Tools to Support Implementation of Global Instruments
• Other United Nations Processes
• The Sustainable Development Goals
• Multilateral & Regional Instruments
• Scope of National Firearms Regulations
• National Firearms Strategies & Action Plans
• Harmonization of National Legislation with International Firearms Instruments
• Assistance for Development of National Firearms Legislation
• Firearms Trafficking as a Cross-Cutting Element
• Organized Crime and Organized Criminal Groups
• Criminal Gangs
• Terrorist Groups
• Interconnections between Organized Criminal Groups & Terrorist Groups
• Gangs - Organized Crime & Terrorism: An Evolving Continuum
• International Response
• International and National Legal Framework
• Firearms Related Offences
• Role of Law Enforcement
• Firearms as Evidence
• Use of Special Investigative Techniques
• International Cooperation and Information Exchange
• Prosecution and Adjudication of Firearms Trafficking
• Teaching Methods & Principles
• Ethical Learning Environments
• Overview of Modules
• Module Adaption & Design Guidelines
• Table of Exercises
• Basic Terms
• Forms of Gender Discrimination
• Ethics of Care
• Case Studies for Professional Ethics
• Case Studies for Role Morality
• Additional Exercises
• Defining Organized Crime
• Definition in Convention
• Similarities & Differences
• Activities, Organization, Composition
• Thinking Critically Through Fiction
• Excerpts of Legislation
• Research & Independent Study Questions
• Legal Definitions of Organized Crimes
• Criminal Association
• Definitions in the Organized Crime Convention
• Criminal Organizations and Enterprise Laws
• Enabling Offence: Obstruction of Justice
• Drug Trafficking
• Wildlife & Forest Crime
• Counterfeit Products Trafficking
• Falsified Medical Products
• Trafficking in Cultural Property
• Trafficking in Persons
• Case Studies & Exercises
• Extortion Racketeering
• Loansharking
• Links to Corruption
• Bribery versus Extortion
• Money-Laundering
• Liability of Legal Persons
• How much Organized Crime is there?
• Alternative Ways for Measuring
• Measuring Product Markets
• Risk Assessment
• Key Concepts of Risk Assessment
• Risk Assessment of Organized Crime Groups
• Risk Assessment of Product Markets
• Risk Assessment in Practice
• Positivism: Environmental Influences
• Classical: Pain-Pleasure Decisions
• Structural Factors
• Ethical Perspective
• Crime Causes & Facilitating Factors
• Models and Structure
• Hierarchical Model
• Local, Cultural Model
• Enterprise or Business Model
• Groups vs Activities
• Networked Structure
• Jurisdiction
• Investigators of Organized Crime
• Controlled Deliveries
• Physical & Electronic Surveillance
• Undercover Operations
• Financial Analysis
• Use of Informants
• Rights of Victims & Witnesses
• Role of Prosecutors
• Adversarial vs Inquisitorial Legal Systems
• Mitigating Punishment
• Granting Immunity from Prosecution
• Witness Protection
• Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
• Sentencing Options
• Alternatives to Imprisonment
• Death Penalty & Organized Crime
• Backgrounds of Convicted Offenders
• Confiscation
• Confiscation in Practice
• Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)
• Extradition
• Transfer of Criminal Proceedings
• Transfer of Sentenced Persons
• Module 12: Prevention of Organized Crime
• Adoption of Organized Crime Convention
• Historical Context
• Features of the Convention
• Related international instruments
• Conference of the Parties
• Roles of Participants
• Structure and Flow
• Recommended Topics
• Background Materials
• What is Sex / Gender / Intersectionality?
• Knowledge about Gender in Organized Crime
• Gender and Organized Crime
• Gender and Different Types of Organized Crime
• Definitions and Terminology
• Organized crime and Terrorism - International Legal Framework
• International Terrorism-related Conventions
• UNSC Resolutions on Terrorism
• Organized Crime Convention and its Protocols
• Theoretical Frameworks on Linkages between Organized Crime and Terrorism
• Typologies of Criminal Behaviour Associated with Terrorism
• Terrorism and Drug Trafficking
• Terrorism and Trafficking in Weapons
• Terrorism, Crime and Trafficking in Cultural Property
• Trafficking in Persons and Terrorism
• Intellectual Property Crime and Terrorism
• Kidnapping for Ransom and Terrorism
• Exploitation of Natural Resources and Terrorism
• Review and Assessment Questions
• Research and Independent Study Questions
• Criminalization of Smuggling of Migrants
• UNTOC & the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants
• Offences under the Protocol
• Financial & Other Material Benefits
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Criminal Liability
• Non-Criminalization of Smuggled Migrants
• Scope of the Protocol
• Humanitarian Exemption
• Migrant Smuggling v. Irregular Migration
• Migrant Smuggling vis-a-vis Other Crime Types
• Other Resources
• Assistance and Protection in the Protocol
• International Human Rights and Refugee Law
• Vulnerable groups
• Positive and Negative Obligations of the State
• Identification of Smuggled Migrants
• Participation in Legal Proceedings
• Role of Non-Governmental Organizations
• Smuggled Migrants & Other Categories of Migrants
• Short-, Mid- and Long-Term Measures
• Criminal Justice Reponse: Scope
• Investigative & Prosecutorial Approaches
• Different Relevant Actors & Their Roles
• Testimonial Evidence
• Financial Investigations
• Non-Governmental Organizations
• ‘Outside the Box’ Methodologies
• Intra- and Inter-Agency Coordination
• Admissibility of Evidence
• International Cooperation
• Exchange of Information
• Non-Criminal Law Relevant to Smuggling of Migrants
• Administrative Approach
• Complementary Activities & Role of Non-criminal Justice Actors
• Macro-Perspective in Addressing Smuggling of Migrants
• Human Security
• International Aid and Cooperation
• Migration & Migrant Smuggling
• Mixed Migration Flows
• Social Politics of Migrant Smuggling
• Vulnerability
• Profile of Smugglers
• Role of Organized Criminal Groups
• Humanitarianism, Security and Migrant Smuggling
• Crime of Trafficking in Persons
• The Issue of Consent
• The Purpose of Exploitation
• The abuse of a position of vulnerability
• Indicators of Trafficking in Persons
• Distinction between Trafficking in Persons and Other Crimes
• Misconceptions Regarding Trafficking in Persons
• Root Causes
• Supply Side Prevention Strategies
• Demand Side Prevention Strategies
• Role of the Media
• Safe Migration Channels
• Crime Prevention Strategies
• Monitoring, Evaluating & Reporting on Effectiveness of Prevention
• Trafficked Persons as Victims
• Protection under the Protocol against Trafficking in Persons
• Broader International Framework
• State Responsibility for Trafficking in Persons
• Identification of Victims
• Principle of Non-Criminalization of Victims
• Criminal Justice Duties Imposed on States
• Role of the Criminal Justice System
• Current Low Levels of Prosecutions and Convictions
• Challenges to an Effective Criminal Justice Response
• Rights of Victims to Justice and Protection
• Potential Strategies to “Turn the Tide”
• State Cooperation with Civil Society
• Civil Society Actors
• The Private Sector
• Comparing SOM and TIP
• Differences and Commonalities
• Vulnerability and Continuum between SOM & TIP
• Labour Exploitation
• Forced Marriage
• Other Examples
• Children on the Move
• Protecting Smuggled and Trafficked Children
• Protection in Practice
• Children Alleged as Having Committed Smuggling or Trafficking Offences
• Basic Terms - Gender and Gender Stereotypes
• International Legal Frameworks and Definitions of TIP and SOM
• Global Overview on TIP and SOM
• Gender and Migration
• Key Debates in the Scholarship on TIP and SOM
• Gender and TIP and SOM Offenders
• Responses to TIP and SOM
• Use of Technology to Facilitate TIP and SOM
• Technology Facilitating Trafficking in Persons
• Technology in Smuggling of Migrants
• Using Technology to Prevent and Combat TIP and SOM
• Privacy and Data Concerns
• Emerging Trends
• Demand and Consumption
• Supply and Demand
• Implications of Wildlife Trafficking
• Legal and Illegal Markets
• Perpetrators and their Networks
• Locations and Activities relating to Wildlife Trafficking
• Environmental Protection & Conservation
• CITES & the International Trade in Endangered Species
• Organized Crime & Corruption
• Animal Welfare
• Criminal Justice Actors and Agencies
• Criminalization of Wildlife Trafficking
• Challenges for Law Enforcement
• Investigation Measures and Detection Methods
• Prosecution and Judiciary
• Wild Flora as the Target of Illegal Trafficking
• Purposes for which Wild Flora is Illegally Targeted
• How is it Done and Who is Involved?
• Consequences of Harms to Wild Flora
• Terminology
• Background: Communities and conservation: A history of disenfranchisement
• Incentives for communities to get involved in illegal wildlife trafficking: the cost of conservation
• Incentives to participate in illegal wildlife, logging and fishing economies
• International and regional responses that fight wildlife trafficking while supporting IPLCs
• Mechanisms for incentivizing community conservation and reducing wildlife trafficking
• Critiques of community engagement
• Other challenges posed by wildlife trafficking that affect local populations
• Global Podcast Series
• Apr. 2021: Call for Expressions of Interest: Online training for academics from francophone Africa
• Feb. 2021: Series of Seminars for Universities of Central Asia
• Dec. 2020: UNODC and TISS Conference on Access to Justice to End Violence
• Nov. 2020: Expert Workshop for University Lecturers and Trainers from the Commonwealth of Independent States
• Oct. 2020: E4J Webinar Series: Youth Empowerment through Education for Justice
• Interview: How to use E4J's tool in teaching on TIP and SOM
• E4J-Open University Online Training-of-Trainers Course
• Teaching Integrity and Ethics Modules: Survey Results
• Grants Programmes
• E4J MUN Resource Guide
• Library of Resources
• Integrity & Ethics
• Module 12: Integrity, Ethics & Law
• {{item.name}} ({{item.items.length}}) items
• Add new list

University Module Series: Integrity & Ethics

Module 12: integrity, ethics and law.

  This module is a resource for lecturers  

Case studies.

Choose one or more of the following case studies and lead a discussion which allows students to address and debate issues of integrity, ethics and law. If time allows, let the students vote on which case studies they want to discuss.

For lecturers teaching large classes, case studies with multiple parts and different methods of solution lend themselves well to the group size and energy in such an environment. Lecturers can begin by having students vote on which case study they prefer. Lecturers could break down analysis of the chosen case study into steps which appear to students in sequential order, thereby ensuring that larger groups stay on track. Lecturers may instruct students to discuss questions in a small group without moving from their seat, and nominate one person to speak for the group if called upon. There is no need to provide excessive amounts of time for group discussion, as ideas can be developed further with the class as a whole. Lecturers can vary the group they call upon to encourage responsive participation.

Back to top

Supported by the state of qatar, 60 years crime congress.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Registered Report
• Published: 01 July 2021

Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis

• Jim A. C. Everett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2801-5426 1   na1 ,
• Clara Colombatto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3293-8741 2   na1 ,
• Edmond Awad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7272-7186 3 ,
• Paulo Boggio 4 ,
• Björn Bos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0242-474X 5 ,
• William J. Brady 2 ,
• Megha Chawla   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9358-8015 2 ,
• Vladimir Chituc   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5316-6245 2 ,
• Dongil Chung   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1999-0326 6 ,
• Moritz A. Drupp   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-0496 5 ,
• Srishti Goel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4697-8840 2 ,
• Brit Grosskopf   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6535-5676 3 ,
• Frederik Hjorth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4063-4983 7 ,
• Alissa Ji   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9368-8454 2 ,
• Caleb Kealoha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3438-3519 2 ,
• Judy S. Kim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-4081 2 ,
• Yangfei Lin 3 ,
• Yina Ma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5457-0354 8 , 9 ,
• Michel André Maréchal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6627-0252 10 ,
• Federico Mancinelli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4606-5876 11 ,
• Christoph Mathys   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4079-5453 11 , 12 , 13 ,
• Asmus L. Olsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7365-6161 7 ,
• Graeme Pearce   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-2629 3 ,
• Annayah M. B. Prosser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2381-9556 14 ,
• Niv Reggev   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5734-7457 15 ,
• Nicholas Sabin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6702-976X 16 ,
• Julien Senn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3571-4444 10 ,
• Yeon Soon Shin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7456-9254 2 ,
• Walter Sinnott-Armstrong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-9966 17 ,
• Hallgeir Sjåstad 18 ,
• Madelijn Strick   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3861-2235 19 ,
• Sunhae Sul   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5286-4343 20 ,
• Lars Tummers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9940-9874 21 ,
• Monique Turner 22 ,
• Hongbo Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3384-7772 23 ,
• Yoonseo Zoh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-5638 2 &
• Molly J. Crockett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8800-410X 2  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  5 ,  pages 1074–1088 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

32k Accesses

28 Citations

293 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

Trust in leaders is central to citizen compliance with public policies. One potential determinant of trust is how leaders resolve conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles in moral dilemmas. Past research suggests that utilitarian responses to dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders: sacrificing some people to save many others (‘instrumental harm’) reduces trust, while maximizing the welfare of everyone equally (‘impartial beneficence’) may increase trust. In a multi-site experiment spanning 22 countries on six continents, participants ( N  = 23,929) completed self-report ( N  = 17,591) and behavioural ( N  = 12,638) measures of trust in leaders who endorsed utilitarian or non-utilitarian principles in dilemmas concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Across both the self-report and behavioural measures, endorsement of instrumental harm decreased trust, while endorsement of impartial beneficence increased trust. These results show how support for different ethical principles can impact trust in leaders, and inform effective public communication during times of global crisis.

Protocol Registration Statement

The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13 November 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13247315.v1 .

Similar content being viewed by others

Changes in political trust in Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: integrated public opinion evidence and implications

Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample

Truth, humane treatment, and identity: perspectives on the legitimacy of the public and private health sectors during Covid in Zambia

During times of crisis, such as wars, natural disasters or pandemics, citizens look to leaders for guidance. Successful crisis management often depends on mobilizing individual citizens to change their behaviours and make personal sacrifices for the public good 1 . Crucial to this endeavour is trust: citizens are more likely to follow official guidance when they trust their leaders 2 . Here, we investigate public trust in leaders in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to threaten millions of lives around the globe at the time of writing 3 , 4 .

Because the novel coronavirus is highly transmissible, a critical factor in limiting pandemic spread is compliance with public health recommendations such as social distancing, physical hygiene and mask wearing 5 , 6 . Trust in leaders is a strong predictor of citizen compliance with a variety of public health policies 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . During pandemics, trust in experts issuing public health guidelines is a key predictor of compliance with those guidelines. For example, during the avian influenza pandemic of 2009 (H1N1), self-reported trust in medical organizations predicted self-reported compliance with protective health measures and vaccination rates 13 , 14 . During the COVID-19 pandemic, data from several countries show that public trust in scientists, doctors and the government is positively associated with self-reported compliance with public health recommendations 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 . These data suggest that trust in leaders is likely to be a key predictor of long-term success in containing the COVID-19 pandemic around the globe. However, the factors that determine trust in leaders during global crises remain understudied.

One possible determinant of trust in leaders during a crisis is how they resolve moral dilemmas that pit distinct ethical principles against one another. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised particularly stark dilemmas of this kind, for instance whether to prioritize young and otherwise healthy people over older people and those with chronic illnesses when allocating scarce medical treatments 19 , 20 . This dilemma and similar others highlight a tension between two major approaches to ethics. Consequentialist theories – of which utilitarianism is the most well-known exemplar 21 – posit that only consequences should matter when making moral decisions. Because younger, healthier people are more likely to recover and have longer lives ahead of them, utilitarians would argue that they should be prioritized for care because this is likely to produce the best overall consequences 22 , 23 , 24 . In contrast, non-utilitarian theories of morality, such as deontological theories 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , argue that morality should consider more than just consequences, including rights, duties and obligations (see Supplementary Note 1 for further details). Non-utilitarians, on deontological grounds, could argue that everyone who is eligible (for example, by being a citizen and/or contributing through taxes or private health insurance) has an equal right to receive medical care, and therefore it is wrong to prioritize some over others 30 . While it is unlikely that ordinary citizens explicitly think about moral issues in terms of specific ethical theories 21 , 31 , past work shows that these philosophical concepts explain substantial variance in the moral judgements of ordinary citizens 32 , 33 , including those in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic 34 .

There is robust evidence that people who endorse utilitarian principles in sacrificial dilemmas – deeming it morally acceptable to sacrifice some lives to save many others – are seen as less moral and trustworthy, chosen less frequently as social partners and trusted less in economic exchanges than people who take a non-utilitarian position and reject sacrificing some to save many 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 . This suggests that leaders who take a utilitarian approach to COVID-19 dilemmas will be trusted less than leaders who take a non-utilitarian approach. Anecdotally, some recent case studies of public communications are consistent with this hypothesis. In the United States, for example, public discussions around whether to reopen schools and the economy versus remain in lockdown highlighted tensions between utilitarian approaches and other ethical principles, with some leaders stressing an imperative to remain in lockdown to prevent deaths from COVID-19 (consistent with deontological principles) but others arguing that lockdown also has costs and these need to be weighed against the costs of pandemic-related deaths (consistent with utilitarian principles; Supplementary Note 2 ). Those who appealed to utilitarian arguments – such as President Donald Trump, who argued “we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself” 41 and Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who suggested that older Americans might be “willing to take a chance” on their survival for the sake of their grandchildrens’ economic prospects 42 – were met with widespread public outrage 43 . Likewise, when leaders in Italy suggested prioritizing young and healthy COVID-19 patients over older patients when ventilators became scarce, they were intensely criticized by the public 44 . Mandatory contact tracing policies, which have been proposed on utilitarian grounds, have also faced strong public criticisms about infringement of individual rights to privacy 45 , 46 , 47 .

While past research and recent case studies suggest that utilitarian approaches to pandemic dilemmas are likely to erode trust in leaders, other evidence suggests this conclusion may be premature. First, some work shows that utilitarians are perceived as more competent than non-utilitarians 38 , and to the extent that trust in leaders is related to perceptions of their competence 2 , it is possible that utilitarian approaches to pandemic dilemmas will increase rather than decrease trust in leaders. Second, utilitarianism has at least two distinct dimensions: it permits harming innocent individuals to maximize aggregate utility (‘instrumental harm’), and it treats the interests of all individuals as equally important (‘impartial beneficence’) 21 , 33 . Indeed, preliminary evidence suggests these two dimensions characterize the way ordinary people think about moral dilemmas in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic 34 . These two dimensions of utilitarianism not only are psychologically distinct in the general public 33 but also have distinct impacts on perception of leaders. Specifically, when people endorse (versus reject) utilitarian principles in the domain of instrumental harm they are seen as worse political leaders, but in some cases are seen as better political leaders when they endorse utilitarian principles in the domain of impartial beneficence 37 .

Another dilemma that pits utilitarian principles against other non-utilitarian principles – this time in the domain of impartial beneficence – is whether leaders should prioritize their own citizens over people in other countries when allocating scarce resources. The utilitarian sole focus on consequences mandates a strict form of impartiality: the mere fact that someone is one’s friend (or their mother or fellow citizen) does not imply that they have any obligations to such a person that they do not have to any and all persons 48 . Faced with a decision about whether to help a friend (or family member or fellow citizen) or instead provide an equal or slightly larger benefit to a stranger, this strict utilitarian impartiality means that one cannot morally justify favouring the person closer to them. In contrast, many non-utilitarian approaches explicitly incorporate these notions of special obligations, recognizing the relationships between people as morally significant. Here, President Trump went against utilitarian principles when he ordered a major company developing personal protective equipment (PPE) to stop distributing it to other countries who needed it 49 , or when he ordered the US government to buy up all the global stocks of the COVID-19 treatment remdesivir 50 . His actions generated outrage across the world and stood in contrast to statements from many other Western leaders at the time. The Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, for example, endorsed impartial beneficence when he argued for the imperative to “ensure that the world’s poorest countries have the support they need to slow the spread of the virus” (3 June 2020) 51 . In a similar vein, the Dutch government donated 50 million euros to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, an organization that aims to distribute vaccines equally across the world 52 .

In sum, public trust in leaders is likely to be a crucial determinant of successful pandemic response and may depend in part on how leaders approach the many moral dilemmas that arise during a pandemic. Utilitarian responses to such dilemmas may erode or enhance trust relative to non-utilitarian approaches, depending on whether they concern instrumental harm or impartial beneficence. Past research on trust and utilitarianism is insufficient to understand how utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas influence trust during the COVID-19 pandemic – and future crises – for several reasons. First, it has relied on highly artificial moral dilemmas, such as the ‘trolley problem’ 53 , 54 , that most people have not encountered in their daily lives. Thus, the findings of past studies may not generalize to the context of a global health crisis, where everyone around the world is directly impacted by the moral dilemmas that arise during a pandemic. Second, because the vast majority of previous work on trust in utilitarians has focused on instrumental harm, we know little about how impartial beneficence impacts trust. Third, most previous work on this topic has focused on trust in ordinary people. However, there is evidence that utilitarianism differentially impacts perceptions of ordinary people and leaders 37 , 38 , 40 , which means we cannot generalize from past research on trust in utilitarians to a leadership context. Because leaders have power to resolve moral dilemmas through policymaking, and therefore can have far more impact on the outcomes of public health crises than ordinary people can, it is especially important to understand how leaders’ approaches to moral dilemmas impact trust. Finally, past work on inferring trust from moral decisions has been conducted in just a handful of Western populations – in the United States, Belgium, and Germany – and so may not generalize to other countries that are also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We need, therefore, to assess cross-cultural stability by testing this hypothesis in different countries around the world. Indeed, given observations of cultural variation in the willingness to endorse sacrificial harm 32 , it is not a foregone conclusion that utilitarian decisions will impact trust in leaders universally. For further details of how the present work advances our understanding of moral dilemmas and trust in leaders, see Supplementary Notes 3 – 5 .

The goal of the current research is to test the hypothesis that endorsement of instrumental harm would decrease trust in leaders while endorsement of impartial beneficence would increase trust in leaders, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing this hypothesis across a diverse set of 22 countries spanning six continents (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 1 ) in November–December 2020, we aim to inform how leaders around the globe can communicate with their constituencies in ways that will preserve trust during global crises. Given the public health consequences of mistrust in leaders 7 , 8 , 9 , if our hypothesis is confirmed, leaders may wish to carefully consider weighing in publicly on moral dilemmas that are unresolvable with policy, because their opinions might erode citizens’ trust in other pronouncements that may be more pressing, such as advice to comply with public health guidelines.

a , Regions of recruitment for online samples broadly nationally representative with respect to age and gender. KSA, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. UAE, the United Arab Emirates. b , Running 7-day average of new COVID-19 confirmed global infections from 29 January 2020 to 14 March 2021, with highlighted data collection window (red; from 26 November 2020 to 22 December 2020). Number of COVID-19 confirmed infections were taken from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University 71 (last update 14 March 2021). c , Summary of the five COVID-19 dilemmas employed in the experimental tasks. d , Voting task: participants were asked to vote for a leader who would later be entrusted with a group’s charitable donation and be able to ‘embezzle’ some of the donation money for themselves.

Source data

To test our hypothesis empirically, we drew on case studies of public communications to identify five moral dilemmas that have been actively debated during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1c ). Three of these dilemmas involve instrumental harm: the Ventilators dilemma concerns whether younger individuals should be prioritized to receive intensive medical care over older individuals when medical resources such as ventilators are scarce 23 , 44 , the Lockdown dilemma concerned whether to consider reopening schools and the economy or remain in lockdown 23 , 55 and the Tracing dilemma concerned whether it should be mandatory for residents to carry devices that continuously trace the wearer’s movements, allowing the government to immediately identify people who have potentially been exposed to the coronavirus 45 , 46 , 47 . The other two dilemmas involved impartial beneficence: the PPE dilemma concerned whether PPE manufactured within a particular country should be reserved for that country’s citizens under conditions of scarcity, or sent where it is most needed 23 , 56 , 57 , 58 , and the Medicine dilemma concerned whether a novel COVID-19 treatment developed within a particular country should be delivered with priority to that country’s citizens, or shared impartially around the world 56 , 59 , 60 . Participants in our studies read about leaders who endorsed either utilitarian or non-utilitarian solutions to the dilemmas (Table 1 ) and subsequently completed behavioural and self-report measures of trust in the respective leaders (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). For example, some read about a leader who endorsed prioritizing younger over older people for scarce ventilators and were then asked how much they trusted that leader. While there are many similar dilemmas potentially relevant to the COVID-19 crisis, we chose to focus on the five described above because they (1) have been publicly debated at time of writing, and (2) apply to all countries in our planned sample. For further details of why we chose these specific dilemmas and how they can test our theoretical predictions, see Supplementary Notes 2 and 6– 9 .

We measured trust in two complementary ways. First, we asked participants to self-report their general trust in the leaders, in terms of both an overall character judgement (“How trustworthy do you think this person is?”) and how likely they would be to trust this person on other issues not related to the dilemma (“How likely would you be to trust this person’s advice on other issues?”). Second, we used a novel, incentivized voting task designed to measure public trust in leaders (Fig. 1d ). Following past work, we define leaders as people who are responsible for making decisions on behalf of a group 61 , 62 . In the voting task, participants were invited to cast a vote to appoint a leader who would be responsible for making a charitable donation on behalf of a group. Crucially, the leader had the opportunity to ‘embezzle’ some of the donation money for themselves. Participants were asked to vote for either a person who endorsed a utilitarian or a non-utilitarian position on a COVID-19 dilemma; the person who received the most votes would have control over the group’s donation. By measuring preferences for a leader who was responsible for a group’s donations to help those in need, the voting task captures trust in leaders in a specific context that is highly relevant to our central research question: during a health crisis, effective leadership requires responsible stewardship of public resources to help those in need. For further details of why we designed our trust measures in this way, see Supplementary Notes 10 – 12 .

Our analyses therefore tested two complementary hypotheses. First, we predicted that self-reported trust would be lower for leaders who endorse utilitarian over non-utilitarian approaches to dilemmas involving instrumental harm, while the reverse pattern would be observed for impartial beneficence, with greater trust for leaders who endorse utilitarian approaches to dilemmas involving impartial beneficence (hypothesis 1). Second, we predicted that participants would be less likely to vote for leaders who endorse utilitarian over non-utilitarian views on dilemmas involving instrumental harm, while the reverse pattern would be observed for dilemmas involving impartial beneficence (hypothesis 2). Pilot studies conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom in July 2020 provided initial support for these hypotheses (see Pilot Data in Supplementary Information and Supplementary Figs. 2 – 6 for details). All analyses controlled for participants’ demographics and own policy preferences in each dilemma (Table 2 ).

Finally, we note that the framing of both the self-report and behavioural measures of trust are deliberately unrelated to the pandemic dilemmas we use to highlight the moral commitments of the leader. This crucial design choice allowed us to measure the impact of utilitarian versus non-utilitarian endorsements of pandemic dilemmas on subsequent trust in leaders. In this way, the current design illuminates an important real-life question: if a leader weighs in publicly on a moral dilemma during a crisis, how likely are they to be trusted later on other matters of public concern?

Analysed dataset

Donations task.

A few days prior to running the main experiment, we recruited a convenience sample of donor participants (total N  = 100; 58 women, 40 men, 2 with another gender identity; mean age 33.95 years) in the United States via Prolific ( www.prolific.co ). The donor participants chose to contribute a total of US$87.89 to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). We displayed this amount to voter participants in the main experiment.

Participants

Following the pre-registered sampling plan ( Methods ), we recruited participants via several online survey platforms from 26 November 2020 to 22 December 2020, as new cases of COVID-19 in 2020 were peaking globally (Fig. 1b ). In total, we recruited a sample of 24,809 participants across the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 ).

As specified in our pre-registered sampling plan ( Methods ), participants who did not pass the attention checks were screened out immediately prior to beginning the survey, but due to platform and institutional review board requirements, participants in the United States and the United Kingdom were able to complete the survey even if they failed such checks, and so they were excluded post hoc, after data collection ( N  = 101 for attention check 1, N  = 118 for attention check 2). In addition, participants were excluded according to our exclusion criteria if they (1) took the survey more than once ( N  = 565), (2) reported living in a country different from that of intended recruitment ( N  = 96, of which 4 did not answer the question) or (3) failed to answer more than 50% of the questions ( N  = 0). The sample size after applying these exclusion criteria was 23,929; we then excluded participants from specific analyses if they (4) did not provide a response for one of our main dependent variables ( N  = 177 for self-report, N  = 201 for voting) or (5) failed the comprehension check for the task being analysed ( Design ; N  = 6,161 for self-report, N  = 11,090 for voting). This resulted in a total final sample of N  = 17,591 for the self-report task and N  = 12,638 for the voting task. Crucially, the comprehension check failure rates were balanced across experimental conditions for each task (failure rate for self-report task comprehension check: 25.30% after instrumental harm dilemmas, utilitarian argument (final N  = 4,499); 26.08% after instrumental harm, non-utilitarian argument (final N  = 4,299); 25.25% after impartial beneficence, utilitarian argument (final N  = 4,461); 27.13% after impartial beneficence, non-utilitarian argument (final N  = 4,332); fail rate for voting task comprehension check: 46.46% after instrumental harm dilemmas (final N  = 6,373); 47.02% after impartial beneficence dilemmas (final N  = 6,265)).

Representativeness

As stated in the stage 1 report, while we aimed to recruit samples broadly representative for age and gender in all countries, we anticipated that it would be difficult to obtain fully representative quotas in all countries for some demographic categories. To evaluate the representativeness of our samples across age and gender categories, we examined the differences between our targeted quotas (based on available published population characteristics) and actual quotas in the data, separately for each country. We achieved broadly representative samples for gender, with most differences between the observed and targeted proportions being less than or equal to 5% in all but two countries (Singapore and the United Arab Emirates). Note that, because available population data across countries primarily report binary gender categories, our estimates of representativeness were not able to account for those identifying as non-binary, which is a limitation. Similarly, in 15 countries we obtained broadly representative samples for age, with the difference between targeted and actual proportions being less than or equal to 5%. In six countries (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States), older participants were underrepresented in our sample by 6–15%. In one country (Germany), older participants were overrepresented by 6% (for details, see Supplementary Results ; for figures depicting expected versus obtained counts in each gender and age category, see Supplementary Figs. 7 and 8 )

Main analyses

The main results are depicted in Figs. 2 and 3 , across both the self-report and behavioural measures, respectively. As predicted, participants showed more trust in leaders who endorsed utilitarian views in impartial beneficence dilemmas and less trust in leaders who endorsed utilitarian views in instrumental harm dilemmas. This pattern of results was observed for each dilemma (Figs. 2b and 3c ) and was robust across countries (Fig. 4a,b ). Following our pre-registered analysis plan ( Analysis plan for hypothesis testing ), we examined self-report and behavioural measures of trust in two separate models, with results passing a corrected α of P  ≤ 0.005 being interpreted as ‘supportive evidence’ for our hypotheses, and results passing a corrected α of P  < 0.05 being interpreted as ‘suggestive evidence’ (all the CIs reported below are 97.5%).

a , b , Average trust in utilitarian versus non-utilitarian leaders, with results collapsed across instrumental harm and impartial beneficence dilemmas ( a ) and separately for each of the instrumental harm dilemmas (Lockdown, Tracing and Ventilators) and impartial beneficence dilemmas (PPE and Medicine) ( b ) in the self-report task ( N  = 17,591). Non-utilitarian leaders were seen as more trustworthy than utilitarian leaders for instrumental harm dilemmas, while the reverse was observed for impartial beneficence dilemmas. Bars correspond to median scores; lower and upper hinges correspond to the first and third quartiles, respectively; and whiskers ends correspond to the most extreme data points within 1.5 times the interquartile range.

a , Percentage of participants who chose to trust utilitarian versus non-utilitarian leaders, separately for instrumental harm and impartial beneficence dilemmas in the voting task ( N  = 12,638). b , Choices for utilitarian versus non-utilitarian leaders as estimated from a logit model including demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective SES, political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as covariates, and dilemmas and countries as random intercepts (for details, see “ Hypothesis 2: voting measure ”). c , Percentage of participants who chose to trust utilitarian versus non-utilitarian leaders, separately for each of the instrumental harm dilemmas (Lockdown, Tracing and Ventilators) and impartial beneficence dilemmas (PPE and Medicine). Non-utilitarian leaders were more likely to be voted for in instrumental harm dilemmas, but not in impartial beneficence dilemmas. Error bars represent standard error of the percentages ( a ) and ( c ), and the 97.5% CIs of the model estimates ( b ).

a , Predicted effect of moral dimension (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) and argument (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian) on trust in the self-report task ( N  = 17,591) for each country and overall. Dots represent model coefficients extracted from a model including country as a random slope of the interactive effect of moral dimension and argument ( Exploratory analyses ); error bars represent standard errors of the model coefficients. b , Odds ratio of the effect of moral dimension (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) on trust for the utilitarian versus non-utilitarian leader in the voting task ( N  = 12,638) for each country and overall. Dots represent odds ratios extracted from a model including country as a random slope of moral dimension ( Exploratory analyses ); error bars represent exponentiated standard errors of the model coefficients. c , Correlation between the country-level effect size estimates in the self-report task ( x axis; also depicted in a ) and voting task ( y axis; also depicted in b ). UAE, the United Arab Emirates; KSA, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Hypothesis 1: self-reported trust

To examine participants’ self-reported trust in the leaders, we fitted a linear mixed-effects model of the effect of argument type (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) and their interaction on the composite score of trust, adding demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective socio-economic status (SES), political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as fixed effects and dilemmas and countries as random intercepts, with participants nested within countries (for details, see Analysis plan for hypothesis testing ). As specified in Analysis plan , we also ran a model that included countries as random slopes of the two main effects and the interactive effect; the results were consistent with the simpler model, but due to convergence issues with the more complex model, we report the simpler model.

We observed a significant main effect of argument type ( B  = −0.53, s.e. 0.02, t (17,562) = −24.81, P  < 0.001, CI [−0.58, −0.48]), no significant main effect of dimension type ( B  = 0.10, s.e. 0.10, t (3) = 0.95, P  = 0.408, CI [−0.15, 0.35]) and, crucially, a significant interaction between argument and dimension type ( B  = 2.12, s.e. 0.04, t (17,558) = 49.44, P  < 0.001, CI [2.03, 2.22]). Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni corrections confirmed that, in instrumental harm dilemmas, utilitarian leaders were seen as less trustworthy than non-utilitarian leaders (mean trust for utilitarian leaders 3.35, s.e. 0.09, CI [3.05, 3.65]; mean trust for non-utilitarian leaders 4.95, s.e. 0.09, CI [4.64, 5.25]; B  = −1.60, s.e. 0.03, t (17,559) = −52.51, P  < 0.001, CI [−1.66, −1.53]), but in impartial beneficence dilemmas this effect was reversed, such that utilitarian leaders were seen as more trustworthy than non-utilitarian leaders (mean trust for utilitarian leaders 4.51, s.e. 0.10, CI [4.14, 4.88]; mean trust for non-utilitarian leaders 3.98, s.e. 0.10, CI [3.61, 4.35]; B  = 0.53, s.e. 0.03, t (17,560) = 17.41, P  < 0.001, CI [0.46, 0.60]; see Fig. 2a ; for results by dilemma, see Fig. 2b ; for results by country, see Fig. 4a ).

Hypothesis 2: voting measure

To examine participants’ trust in the leaders as demonstrated by their voting behaviour, we fitted a generalized linear mixed-effects model with the logit link of the effect of dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) on leader choice in the voting task (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), adding demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective SES, political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as fixed effects and dilemmas and countries as random intercepts, with participants nested within countries (for details, see Analysis plan for hypothesis testing ). This yielded a singular fit, so following our analysis plan, we reduced the complexity of the random-effects structure by only including dilemmas and countries as random intercepts. As specified in Analysis plan , we also ran a model that included countries as random slopes of the effect of dimension type; the results were consistent with the simpler model, but due to singularity issues (both with and without participants nested within countries), we report the simpler model.

We observed a significant main effect for dimension type ( B  = 1.37, s.e. 0.32, z  = 4.21, P  < 0.001, CI [0.41, 2.33], odds ratio (OR) 3.93) such that participants were almost four times more likely to choose the utilitarian leader in impartial beneficence dilemmas compared with instrumental harm dilemmas. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni corrections confirmed that, in instrumental harm dilemmas, participants were less likely to vote for utilitarian leaders than non-utilitarian leaders (probability of choosing utilitarian leader 0.21, s.e. 0.04, CI [0.13, 0.31]), but in impartial beneficence dilemmas this effect vanished (probability of choosing utilitarian leader 0.50, s.e. 0.07, CI [0.34, 0.67]; see Fig. 3a ; for model estimates, see Fig. 3b ; for results by dilemma, see Fig. 3c ; for results by country, see Fig. 4b ).

Based on suggestions that logit and linear models should converge and that linear models can in some cases be preferable 63 , 64 , we had also pre-registered the same analysis using a linear model (instead of a model with the logit link) with the identical fixed- and random-effects structures. However, the linear model yielded non-significant results for the main effect of dimension type with our Bonferroni-corrected alpha ( B  = 0.18, s.e. 0.05, t (3) = 3.73, P  = 0.034, CI [0.07, 0.30]; probability of choosing utilitarian leader in instrumental harm dilemmas 0.30, s.e. 0.03, CI [0.16, 0.45], in impartial beneficence dilemmas 0.49, s.e. 0.04, CI [0.31, 0.67]). This discrepancy was unusual, since binomial and linear approaches most often give converging results 65 , 66 . Following our pre-registered analysis plan, we followed up on this non-significant result using the two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure to differentiate between insensitive versus null results. Given the equivalence bounds set by our smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) ( Δ L  = −0.15 and Δ U  = 0.15; Power analysis ), the effect of dimension on leader choice (a 32% difference) was statistically not equivalent to zero ( z  = 20.77, P  = 1.000 for the test with Δ U ). This analysis, however, does not take into account the covariates specified in the models.

To resolve the discrepancy between our pre-registered binomial and linear models, we ran a number of additional exploratory models. These are described in Exploratory analyses section and summarized in Table 3 .

Robustness checks

Following our analysis plan, we verified the robustness of our findings in several ways. First, due to the changes in country-specific lockdown policies that were implemented between pre-registration and data collection, we ran a variation of our models which omitted the Lockdown dilemma. The results were substantially unchanged, both for the self-report task (interaction between argument and dimension type: B  = 2.26, s.e. 0.05, t (17,640) = 48.56, P  < 0.001, CI [2.16, 2.37]) and the voting task (main effect for dimension type in binomial model: B  = 1.29, s.e. 0.39, z  = 3.33, P  < 0.001, CI [0.06, 2.52], OR 3.63) tasks.

In addition, because some countries had already implemented mandatory contact tracing schemes at the time of data collection, we ran a variation of our models in those countries only (namely China, India, Israel, Singapore and South Korea) with and without the Tracing dilemma. The results in those countries were similar when including and omitting the Tracing dilemma from the analysis, both for the self-report task (Tracing included: interaction between argument and dimension type: B  = 1.13, s.e. 0.10, t (3,267) = 11.62, P  < 0.001, CI [0.91, 1.35]; Tracing excluded: interaction between argument and dimension type: B  = 1.55, s.e. 0.10, t (3,266) = 14.86, P  < 0.001, CI [1.32, 1.78]) and voting task (Tracing included: main effect for dimension type in binomial model: B  = 0.98, s.e. 0.36, z  = 2.70, P  = 0.007, CI [−0.09, 2.07], OR 2.67; Tracing excluded: main effect for dimension type in binomial model: B  = 1.32, s.e. 0.14, z  = 9.26, P  < 0.001, CI [0.88, 1.78], OR 3.74). Finally, we also checked that the results in these countries were robust to order effects (that is, regardless of whether participants had seen the tracing dilemma prior to other dilemmas). To do this, we analysed participants’ responses with an additional covariate indicating whether the participant had seen the tracing dilemma in the prior task. Again, the results were substantially unchanged both for the self-report task (interaction between argument and dimension type: B  = 1.13, s.e. 0.10, t (3,266) = 11.62, P  < 0.001, CI [0.91, 1.35]) and the voting task (main effect for dimension type in binomial model: B  = 1.11, s.e. 0.37, z  = 3.01, P  = 0.003, CI [0.03, 2.20], OR 3.03).

Exploratory analyses

Additional models for voting task.

As noted above, our main pre-registered analysis for the voting task was a generalized linear mixed-effects model with the logit link of the effect of dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) on the leader choice (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), with demographics and participants’ own policy preferences as fixed effects and dilemmas and countries as random intercepts (Table 2 ). This analysis confirmed our predictions, but we had also pre-registered the same analysis using a linear model (instead of logit link) with the identical fixed- and random-effects structure. As described above, the results from this model did not pass our pre-registered Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold. This discrepancy was unusual, given prior reports that linear and binomial models yield identical results in the vast majority of cases 63 , 66 . As a first check on this discrepancy, we assessed the fits of the binomial and linear models by fitting each with half the data, and predicting the leader choices in the remaining half. The mean difference between the predicted and observed values was lower in the binomial model (mean error 0.25) compared with the linear model (mean error 0.27; t (6,318) = −32.53, P  < 0.001), suggesting that the binomial model is a better fit to our data.

Next, we ran a series of follow-up analyses to supplement our pre-registered, theoretically informed models. There are a variety of opinions for how to best level complex nested binary data like ours. For example, while random effects aid generalizability 67 , some advocate for modelling country variables as fixed rather than random effects to prevent increases in model bias 68 , 69 or overly complex random-effects structures 70 . Moreover, while controlling for demographic variables is important for generalizability of our findings, some advocate for minimal use of covariates to prevent type 1 error inflation 71 . Due to the discrepancy in the theoretically justified models that we had pre-registered and ongoing debates over the specifications of modelling such complex data, we ran a variety of models (described in detail in Supplementary Results and summarized in Table 3 ) with different link functions and different specifications of fixed and random effects, as well as robust random effects and randomization inference. Overall, all models led to the same conclusion: participants voted for the non-utilitarian leader more than the utilitarian leader in dilemmas about instrumental harm, but the reverse in impartial beneficence dilemmas, with the utilitarian leader trusted more than the non-utilitarian leader – suggesting that the discrepancy between our pre-registered binomial and linear models was due to an overly complex random-effects structure.

Effects by country

To explore cross-cultural variation in trust in utilitarian versus non-utilitarian leaders, we ran additional models with country as a random slope and extracted the coefficients of interest (Fig. 4a,b ). For the self-report task, we conducted a linear mixed-effects model of the effect of argument type (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) and their interaction on the composite score of trust, adding demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective SES, political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as fixed effects and countries as a random slope of the interactive effect of argument and dimension. First, we confirmed that there was a significant interaction between argument and dimension type ( B  = 2.08, s.e. 0.16, t (21) = 13.08, P  < 0.001, CI [1.71, 2.45]), consistent with our pre-registered model. Next, we extracted the interaction coefficients for each country, as well as the standard errors of the coefficients, with the estimates plotted in Fig. 4a . While there were some variations in the effect sizes, the results were remarkably consistent across countries. The predicted pattern of results was observed in all 22 countries, with Israel, South Korea and China showing the smallest effects and Brazil, the UAE and Norway showing the largest effects.

For the voting task, we conducted a generalized linear mixed-effects model with the logit link of the effect of dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) on leader choice (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), adding demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective SES, political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as fixed effects and countries as a random slope of dimension. First, we confirmed there was a significant main effect for dimension type ( B  = 1.34, s.e. 0.07, z  = 17.88, P  < 0.001, CI [1.16, 1.51], OR 3.81), as in our pre-registered model. Next, we extracted the coefficients for each country, as well as the standard errors of the coefficients, and exponentiated them to get the odds ratios, with the resulting estimates plotted in Fig. 4b . Again, the results were remarkably consistent with the predicted pattern of results seen across all 22 countries, with China, Israel and Canada showing the smallest effects and Norway, the UAE and the United States showing the largest effect size.

Correlations between self-report and behavioural measures across countries

The self-report and behavioural tasks employed in the current study are highly complementary in several ways: for example, the former is more generalizable across different situations, while the latter is incentivized and more concrete (see Supplementary Note 10 for further details). To ensure that despite their superficial differences the tasks targeted the same construct, that is, trust in leaders, and measured robust preferences across countries, we checked that the effects of moral arguments and utilitarian dimensions on these measures were correlated across countries. Indeed, we found that the coefficients of the interaction between moral argument and moral dimension on trust in the self-report task were significantly correlated with the effect of moral dimension on leader choice in the voting task ( r  = 0.76, P  < 0.001; Fig. 4c ).

Effects of participant exclusions in voting task

The main analyses reported above were performed on a subset of participants who passed the comprehension checks, as per our pre-registered sampling plan (criterion 5; see Sampling plan ). For the voting task, the observed pass rate (53.26%) was lower than the pre-registered expected pass rate (60%), suggesting that the comprehension check may have been overly stringent. Therefore, we conducted additional analyses to explore whether this pre-registered exclusion criterion might have affected the generalizability of our results across the study population in terms of education level.

Participants who failed the voting task comprehension check reported slightly lower educational attainment on average (mean 5.32, s.e. 1.39, CI [5.30, 5.35]) than those who passed the comprehension check (mean 5.42, s.e. 1.37, CI [5.40, 5.45]; t (23,224) = 5.51, P  < 0.001, d  = 0.07). However, we observed similar results in our pre-registered models when including participants who failed the voting task comprehension check (main effect for dimension type in binomial model: B  = 1.26, s.e. 0.28, z  = 4.55, P  < 0.001, CI [0.44, 2.08], OR 3.53; main effect for dimension type in linear model: B  = 0.17, s.e. 0.04, t (3) = 4.11, P  = 0.026, CI [0.07, 0.27]).

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a number of moral dilemmas that engender conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles. Building on past work on utilitarianism and trust, we tested the hypothesis that endorsement of utilitarian solutions to pandemic dilemmas would impact trust in leaders. Specifically, in line with suggestions from previous work and case studies of public communications during the early stages of the pandemic, we predicted that endorsing instrumental harm would decrease trust in leaders, while endorsing impartial beneficence would increase trust. Experiments conducted during November–December 2020 in 22 countries across six continents (total N  = 23,929; valid sample for self-report task 17,591; valid sample for behavioural task 12,638) provided robust support for our hypothesis. In the context of five realistic pandemic dilemmas, participants reported lower trust in leaders who endorsed instrumental sacrifices for the greater good and higher trust in leaders who advocated for impartially maximizing the welfare of everyone equally. In a behavioural measure of trust, only 28% of participants preferred to vote for a utilitarian leader who endorsed instrumental harm, while 60% voted for an impartially beneficent utilitarian leader. These findings were robust to controlling for a variety of demographic characteristics as well as participants’ own policy preferences regarding the dilemmas. Although we observed some variation in effect sizes across the countries we sampled, the overall pattern of results was highly robust across countries. Our results suggest that endorsing utilitarian approaches to moral dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders across the globe, depending on the type of utilitarian morality.

We designed our set of dilemmas to rule out several alternative explanations for our findings, such as a general preference for less restrictive leaders (Supplementary Note 7 ), leaders who treat everyone equally (Supplementary Note 8 ) and leaders who seek to minimize COVID-19-related deaths (Supplementary Note 9 ). In addition, all of our results survived planned robustness checks to account for the possibility that local policies related to lockdowns or contact tracing could bias participants’ responses. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that our findings were highly consistent across the different dilemmas for instrumental harm (Lockdown, Tracing and Ventilators) and impartial beneficence (Medicine and PPE).

While the robustness of our findings across countries speaks to their broad cultural generalizability, further work is needed to understand the observed variations in effect sizes across countries. It seems plausible that both economic (for example, gross domestic product or socio-economic inequality) and cultural (for example, social network structure) differences across countries could explain some of the observed variations. One possibility, for example, is that country-level variations in tightness–looseness 72 , which have been associated with countries’ success in limiting cases in the COVID-19 pandemic 73 , might moderate the effects of moral arguments on trust in leaders. Another direction for future research could be to explore how country-level social network structure might influence our results. Individuals in countries with a higher kinship index 74 and a more family-oriented social network structure, for example, might be less likely to trust utilitarian leaders, especially when the utilitarian solution conflicts with more local moral obligations.

There are several important limitations to the generalizability of our findings. First, although our samples were broadly nationally representative for age and gender (with some exceptions; see Results ), we did not assess representativeness of our samples on a number of other factors including education, income and geographic location. Second, while our results do concord with the limited existing research examining the effects of endorsing instrumental harm and impartial beneficence on perceived suitability as a leader 37 , and held across different examples of our pandemic-specific dilemmas, it of course remains possible that different results would be seen when judging leaders’ responses in other types of crises (for example, violent conflicts, natural disasters or economic crises) or at different stages of a crisis (for example, at the beginning versus later stages). Third, the reported experiments tested how responses to moral dilemmas influenced trust in anonymous, hypothetical political leaders. In the real world, however, people form and update impressions of known leaders with a history of political opinions and behaviours, and it is plausible that inferences of trustworthiness depend not just on a leader’s recent decisions but also on their history of behaviour, just as classic work on impression formation shows that the same information can lead to different impressions depending on prior knowledge about the target person 75 . Furthermore, we did not specify the gender of the leaders in our experiments (except in the voting task for China and for the Hebrew and Arabic translations, where it is not possible to indicate ‘leader’ without including a gendered pronoun; here it was translated in the masculine form). Past work conducted in the United States suggests that participants may default to an assumption that the leader is a man 76 , but it will be important for future work to assess whether men and women leaders are judged differentially for their moral decisions. Because women are typically stereotyped as being warmer and more communal than men 77 , it is plausible that women leaders would face more backlash for making ‘cold’ utilitarian decisions, especially in the domain of instrumental harm. Fourth, because the current work focused on trust in political leaders, it remains unclear how utilitarianism would impact trust in people who occupy other social roles, such as medical workers or ordinary citizens. Fifth, and finally, it could be interesting to explore further the connection between impartial beneficence and intergroup psychology, especially with regards to teasing apart ‘impartiality’ and ‘beneficence’. For example, even holding beneficence constant, a leader who advocates for impartially sharing resources with a rival country may be perceived differently from one who impartially shares with an allied country (and, while speculative, this distinction might explain why Israel was an outlier in impartial beneficence, being a country in a region with ongoing local conflicts).

Our results have clear implications for how leaders’ responses to moral dilemmas can impact how they are trusted. In times of global crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders will necessarily face real, urgent and serious dilemmas. Faced with such dilemmas, decisions have to be made, and our findings suggest that how leaders make these judgements can have important consequences, not just for whether they are trusted on the issue in question but also more generally. Importantly, this will be the case even when the leader has little direct control over the resolution. While a national leader (for example, a president or prime minister) has the power and responsibility to resolve some moral dilemmas with policy decisions, not all political leaders (for example, as in our study, local mayors) have that power. A leader with little ability to directly impact the resolution of a moral dilemma might consider that voicing an opinion on that dilemma could reduce their credibility on other issues that they have more power to control.

To conclude, we investigated how trust in leaders is sensitive to how they resolve conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles in moral dilemmas during a global pandemic. Our results provide robust evidence that utilitarian responses to dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders: advocating for sacrificing some people to save many others (that is, instrumental harm) reduces trust, while arguing that we ought to impartially maximize the welfare of everyone equally (that is, impartial beneficence) increases trust. Our work advances understanding of trust in political leaders and shows that, across a variety of cultures, it depends not just on whether they make moral decisions but also which specific moral principles they endorse.

Ethics information

Our research complies with all relevant ethical regulations. The study was approved by the Yale Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board (protocol IDs 2000027892 and 2000022385), the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Human Subjects Research Committee (request no. 20TrustCovR), the Centre for Experimental Social Sciences Ethics Committee (OE_0055) and the NHH Norwegian School of Economics Institutional Review Board (NHH-IRB 10/20). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

An overview of the experiment is depicted in Extended Data Fig. 1 . After selecting their language, providing their consent and passing two attention checks, participants were told that they would “read about three different debates that are happening right now around the world”, that they would be given “some of the justifications that politicians and experts are giving for different policies”, and that they would be “ask[ed] some questions about [their] opinions”. They then completed two tasks measuring their trust in leaders expressing either utilitarian or non-utilitarian opinions (one using a behavioural measure and one using self-report measures, presented in a randomized order); these tasks were followed by questions about their impressions about the ongoing pandemic crisis, as well as individual difference and demographic measures, as detailed below. Data collection was performed blind to the conditions of the participants.

Both behavioural and self-report measures of trust involved five debates on the current pandemic crisis, three of which involved instrumental harm (IH) and two impartial beneficence (IB) (summarized in Fig. 1c and Table 1 ; for full text, see Supplementary Methods ). Each of these five dilemmas were based on real debates that have been occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we developed the philosophical components of each argument in consultation with moral philosophers.

Lockdown (instrumental harm): whether the country should maintain severe restrictions on social gatherings until a vaccine is developed to prevent COVID-related deaths, or consider relaxing restrictions to maximize overall well-being

Ventilators (instrumental harm): whether doctors should give everyone equal access to COVID treatment, or prioritize younger and healthier people

Tracing (instrumental harm): whether the government should make it mandatory for residents to wear contact tracing devices to prevent pandemic spread, or make tracing devices optional to respect residents’ right to privacy

Medicine (impartial beneficence): whether medicine developed in the home country should be reserved for treating the home country’s citizens, or sent wherever it can do the most good, even if that means sending it to other countries

PPE (impartial beneficence): whether PPE manufactured in the home country should be reserved for protecting the home country’s citizens, or sent wherever it can do the most good, even if that means sending it to other countries

See Supplementary Notes 2 and 6 – 9 for further details of why we chose these specific dilemmas and how they can test our theoretical predictions.

Translations

Where the survey was administered in a non-English-speaking country, study materials were translated following a standard forward- and back-translation procedure 78 . First, for forward translation, a native speaker translated materials from English to the target language. Second, for back translation, a second native translator (who had not seen the original English materials) translated the materials back into English. Results were then compared, and if there were any substantial discrepancies, a second forward- and back-translation was conducted with translators working in tandem to resolve issues. Finally, the finished translated and back-translated materials were checked by researchers coordinating the experiment for that country.

Experimental design

Participants were randomly and blindly assigned to one of four conditions in the beginning of the experiment. These conditions corresponded to a 2 × 2 between-subjects design: 2 (moral dimension in the voting task: instrumental harm/impartial beneficence) × 2 (argument in the self-report task: utilitarian/non-utilitarian). In addition, we randomized the order of tasks (voting or self-report task first), the order of arguments in the voting task (utilitarian or non-utilitarian first), the order of dilemmas in the self-report task (Lockdown, Ventilators or Tracing first if instrumental harm, and PPE or Medicine first if impartial beneficence) and the dilemmas displayed (two in the self-report task and one in the voting task randomly chosen among Lockdown, Ventilators and Tracing if instrumental harm, and PPE and Medicine if impartial beneficence). This design allowed us to minimize demand characteristics with between-subjects manipulations of key experimental factors while at the same time maximizing efficiency of data collection.

Attention checks

We included two attention checks prior to the beginning of the experiment. Any participants who failed either of these were then screened out immediately. First, participants were told:

“In studies like ours, there are sometimes a few people who do not carefully read the questions they are asked and just ‘quickly click through the survey.’ These random answers are problematic because they compromise the results of the studies. It is very important that you pay attention and read each question. In order to show that you read our questions carefully (and regardless of your own opinion), please answer ‘TikTok’ in the question on the next page”

Then, on the next page, participants were given a decoy question: “When an important event is happening or is about to happen, many people try to get informed about the development of the situation. In such situations, where do you get your information from?”. Participants were asked to select among the following possible answers, displayed in a randomized order: TikTok, TV, Twitter, Radio, Reddit, Facebook, Youtube, Newspapers, Other. Participants who failed to follow our instructions and selected any answer other than the instructed one (“TikTok”) were then screened out of the survey. Second, participants were asked to read a short paragraph about the history and geography of roses. On the following page, they were asked to indicate which of six topics was not discussed in the paragraph. Participants who answered incorrectly were then screened out of the survey (with the exception of those who participated via Prolific, who were instead allowed to continue due to platform requirements).

Dilemma introduction

Both the voting and self-report tasks began with an introduction to a specific dilemma. In the voting task, participants viewed a single dilemma, and in the self-report task, participants viewed two dilemmas in randomized order (see Extended Data Fig. 1 for details). No participant saw the same dilemma in both the voting and self-report tasks.

The dilemma introduction consisted of a short description of the dilemma (for example, in the PPE dilemma: “Imagine that […] there will soon be another global shortage of personal protective equipment [… and] political leaders are debating how personal protective equipment should be distributed around the globe.”), followed by a description of two potential policies (for example, in the PPE dilemma, US participants read: “[S]ome are arguing that PPE made in American factories should be sent wherever it can do the most good, even if that means sending it to other countries. Others are arguing that PPE made in American factories should be kept in the U.S., because the government should focus on protecting its own citizens.”).

After reading about the dilemma, participants were asked to provide their own opinion about the best course of action (“Which policy do you think should be adopted?”), answered on a 1–7 scale, with the endpoints (1 and 7) representing strong preferences for one of the policies (for example, in the PPE dilemma, they were labelled “Strongly support U.S.-made PPE being reserved for protecting American citizens” and “Strongly support U.S.-made PPE being given to whoever needs it most”, respectively), and the midpoint (4) representing indifference (“Indifferent”). See Supplementary Note 13 for further details. As an exploratory measure that is not analysed for the purposes of the current report, participants also indicated how morally wrong it would be for politicians to endorse the utilitarian approach in each dilemma.

For full text of dilemmas and introduction questions, see Supplementary Methods .

Voting task

Our behavioural measure of trust in the current studies is based on a novel task with two types of participants: voters and donors. Voters were asked to cast a vote for a leader who would be responsible for making a charitable donation to UNICEF on behalf of a group of donors and would have the opportunity to ‘embezzle’ some of the donation money for themselves (Fig. 1d ).

We collected data from donors first. A few days before we ran our main experiment, a convenience sample of US participants ( N  = 100) was recruited from Prolific and was provided with a US$2 bonus endowment. They were given the opportunity to donate up to their full bonus to UNICEF. After making their donation decision, they read about the five COVID-19 dilemmas, in randomized order, and indicated which policy they thought should be adopted. Finally, they were instructed that they might be selected to be responsible for the entire group’s donations to UNICEF. Participants were told that, if they were selected, they would have the opportunity to keep up to the full amount of total group donations for themselves, and were asked to indicate how much of the group’s donations they would keep for themselves if they were selected to be responsible.

Our main experiment focused on the behaviour of voter participants. In the voting task, participants were randomly assigned to read about one dilemma, randomly selected amongst the five dilemmas summarized in Table 1 . After completing the dilemma introduction, participants were asked to “make a choice that has real financial consequences” and told that “[a] few days ago, a group of 100 people were recruited via an international online marketplace and invited to make donations to the charitable organization UNICEF. In total, they donated an amount equivalent to $87.89”. We instructed participants that we would like them to “vote for a leader to be responsible for the entire group’s donations”. Crucially, they were also told that “[t]he leader has two options: They can transfer the group’s $87.89 donation to UNICEF in full, or [t]hey can take some of this money for themselves (up to the full amount) and transfer whatever amount is left to UNICEF”. The exact donation amount was determined by the actual donation choices of the donor participants.

Following these details, participants were asked to cast a vote for the leadership position between two people who had also read about the same dilemma they had just read about. Participants were instructed that one person agreed with the utilitarian argument while the other person agreed with the non-utilitarian argument. This information was displayed to participants on the same page, in a randomized order. Participants were then asked to vote for the person they wished to be responsible for the group’s donations. We instructed participants that we would later identify the winner of the election, and implement their choice by distributing payments to the leader and UNICEF accordingly.

After completing the voting task, voter participants were asked the following comprehension question: “In the last page, you were asked to choose a leader that will be entrusted with the group’s donation. Please select the option that best describes what the leader will be able to do with the donation”. They were asked to select between three options, displayed in randomized order:

The leader can transfer the full donation to UNICEF or take some of the money for themselves.

The leader is not able to do anything with the donation.

The leader chooses how much of the group’s donation to keep for themselves and how much to return to the people who donated the money.

We excluded voter participants who failed to select the correct answer (1), as per our exclusion criteria (Exclusions). Note that in our stage 1 Registered Report the answer choices were slightly different, but we revised them after discovering in a soft launch that participants were systematically choosing one of the incorrect options, suggesting that the question was poorly worded. In consultation with the editor, we clarified the response options and began the data collection procedure anew. This was one of only three deviations from the stage 1 report (the others being that data collection took four weeks instead of the two weeks we had anticipated, and the use of Prolific instead of Lucid for recruitment in the United Kingdom and the United States).

After collecting the votes from the voter participants, we randomly selected ten donor participants to be considered for the leadership position: one who endorsed the utilitarian position for each of the five dilemmas and one who endorsed the non-utilitarian position for each of the five dilemmas. After tallying the votes from voter participants, we implemented the choices of each of the elected leaders and made the payments accordingly. For full text of instructions and questions for both the donor and the voting task, see Supplementary Methods .

Self-reported trust

Participants read about two dilemmas on the dimension of utilitarianism that they did not encounter in the voting task. That is, participants assigned to an instrumental harm dilemma (Lockdown, Ventilators or Tracing) for the voting task read both impartial beneficence dilemmas (PPE and Medicine) for the self-report task, while participants assigned to an impartial beneficence dilemma (PPE or Medicine) for the voting task read a randomly assigned two out of three instrumental harm dilemmas (Lockdown, Ventilators and Tracing) for the self-report task. The structure of the introduction to the dilemmas was identical to that in the voting task: they read a short description of the issue, followed by a description of two potential policies. On separate screens, they were asked which policy they themselves support.

After providing their own opinions, participants were asked to imagine that the mayor of a major city in their region was arguing for one of the two policies, providing either a utilitarian or non-utilitarian argument. Each participant was randomly assigned to read about leaders making either utilitarian or non-utilitarian arguments in both dilemmas presented in the self-report task. After reading about the leader’s opinion and argument, they were then be asked to report their general trust in the leader (“How trustworthy do you think this person is?”), to be answered on a 1–7 scale, with labels “Not at all trustworthy”, “Somewhat trustworthy” and “Extremely trustworthy” at points 1, 4 and 7, respectively. On a separate page they were then asked to report their trust in the leader’s advice on other issues (“How likely would you be to trust this person’s advice on other issues?”), to be answered on a 1–7 scale, with labels “Not at all likely”, “Somewhat likely” and “Extremely likely” at points 1, 4 and 7, respectively.

After completing the self-report task, participants were asked the following comprehension question: “In the last page, you read about a mayor in a city in your region, and were asked about them. Please select the option that best describes the questions you were asked”. Their options, displayed in a randomized order, were: (1) “How much I agreed with the mayor”, (2) “How much I trusted the mayor”, and (3) “How much I admired the mayor”. This allowed us to exclude participants who failed to select the correct answer (2), as per our exclusion criteria (Exclusions).

For full text of instructions and questions for the self-report task, see Supplementary Methods .

COVID concern

To assess their attitudes toward and experience with the pandemic, participants were asked three questions. Two measured how concerned participants currently felt about the pandemic, on both health-related and economic grounds (“How concerned are you about the health-related consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic?” and “How concerned are you about the financial and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic?”, both to be answered on a 1–7 scale, with labels “Not at all” and “Very much” at points 1 and 7, respectively). The third question measured their personal involvement (“Have you or anyone else you know personally suffered significant health consequences as a result of COVID-19?”, to be answered by selecting one of three options: “Yes”, “No” and “Unsure”).

Oxford Utilitarianism Scale

All participants then completed the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale 33 . The scale consists of nine items in two subscales: instrumental harm (OUS-IH) and impartial beneficence (OUS-IB). The OUS-IB subscale consists of five items that measure endorsement of impartial maximization of the greater good, even at great personal cost (for example, “It is morally wrong to keep money that one doesn’t really need if one can donate it to causes that provide effective help to those who will benefit a great deal”). The OUS-IH subscale consists of four items relating to willingness to cause harm so as to bring about the greater good (for example, “It is morally right to harm an innocent person if harming them is a necessary means to helping several other innocent people”). Participants viewed all questions in a randomized order, and answered on a 1–7 scale, with labels “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Somewhat disagree”, “Neither agree nor disagree”, “Somewhat agree”, “Agree” and “Strongly agree”.

Demographics

All participants were asked to report their gender, age, years spent in education, subjective SES, education (on the same scale, but with minor changes in the scale labels across countries), political ideology (using an item from the World Values Survey) and religiosity. These questions were the same across countries and represent the demographics used as covariates in the main analyses. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate their region of residence (for example for the United States, “Which US State do you currently live in?”), and ethnicity/race, with the specific wording and response options depending on the local context (in France and Germany, this was not collected due to local regulations). In addition, participants were asked to confirm their country of residence, which allowed us to exclude participants who reported living in a country different from that of intended recruitment, as per our exclusion criteria (Exclusions).

Debriefing questions

Finally, participants were asked a series of debriefing questions. Two of these assessed their participation in other COVID-related studies (“Approximately how many COVID-related studies have you participated in before this one?”, answered by selecting one of the following options: “0”, “1–5”, “6–10”, “11–20”, “21–50”, “More than 50” and “I don’t remember”, and “If you have participated in any other COVID-related studies, how similar were they to this one?”, to be answered by selecting one of the following options: “Extremely similar”, “Very similar”, “Moderately similar”, “Slightly similar”, “Not at all similar” and “Not applicable”).

An additional question assessed participants’ attitudes towards the charity involved in the voting task (“How reliable do you think UNICEF is as an organization in using donations for helping people?”, answered on a 1–5 scale, with labels “Not reliable at all”, “Somewhat reliable” and “Very reliable” at points 1, 3 and 5, respectively).

Analysis plan

Pre-processing.

We planned to exclude data either at the participant level as outlined in Sampling plan section, based on criteria 1 (duplicate response), 2 (different residence) and 3 (partial completion), or on an analysis-by-analysis basis as outlined in criteria 4 (missing variables) and 5 (failed comprehension checks).

All participants’ responses were analysed, regardless of whether they were statistical outliers.

Computation of composite measures

Composite measures of self-reported trust were created by averaging responses to the two trust questions (trustworthiness of the leader and trust in the leader’s advice on other issues), separately for each participant and dilemma. In addition, we created composite OUS scores for each participant by averaging their responses on the scale items, separately for the instrumental harm (four items) and impartial beneficence subscales (five items).

Analysis plan for hypothesis testing

We planned to examine behavioural measures and self-report measures of trust in two separate models. For testing our hypotheses across all countries, we set a significance threshold of α  = 0.0025 (Bonferroni corrected for two tests). All analyses were conducted in R using the packages lme4 79 , lmerTest 80 , estimatr 81 , emmeans 82 , ggeffects 83 , ri2 84 and glmnet 85 . We planned that, in the event of convergence or singularity issues, we would supplement the theoretically appropriate models described below with simplified models by reducing the complexity of the random-effects structure 86 .

To examine participants’ self-reported trust in the leaders, we planned to examine the composite measure of their trust in each leader (that is, the average of the two trust questions, computed separately for each participant and dilemma). We hypothesized that participants would report higher trust in non-utilitarian leaders compared with utilitarian leaders in the context of dilemmas involving instrumental harm, while the opposite pattern would be observed for impartial beneficence. To test this hypothesis, we planned to conduct a linear mixed-effects model of the effect of argument type (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) and their interaction on the composite score of trust, adding demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective SES, political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as fixed effects and dilemmas and countries as random intercepts, with participants nested within countries. In addition, we planned to run a model that included countries as random slopes of the two main effects and the interactive effect. We said that, should the model converge and should the results differ from the simpler model proposed above, we would compare model fits using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and retain the model that better fits the data, while still reporting the other in supplementary materials. We planned to follow up on significant effects with post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrections. For the purposes of the analysis, we used effect coding such that, for argument type, the non-utilitarian condition was coded as −0.5 and the utilitarian condition as 0.5, and for the dimension type, instrumental harm was coded as −0.5 and impartial beneficence as 0.5. The demographic covariates were grand-mean-centred; the gender variable was dummy coded with “woman” as baseline. P values were computed using Satterthwaite’s approximation for degrees of freedom as implemented in lmerTest. For analysis code, see https://osf.io/m9tpu/ .

To examine participants’ trust in the leaders as demonstrated by their behaviour, we planned to examine their choices in the voting task, where they were asked to select which of two leaders (one making a utilitarian argument and the other a non-utilitarian one) to entrust with a group charity donation. We hypothesized that participants would be more likely to select the non-utilitarian leader over the utilitarian leader when reading about their arguments for dilemmas involving instrumental harm, while the opposite pattern would be observed for impartial beneficence. To test this hypothesis, we planned to conduct a generalized linear mixed-effects model with the logit link of the effect of dimension type (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) on the leader choice (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian), adding demographic variables (gender, age, education, subjective SES, political ideology and religiosity) and policy support as fixed effects and dilemmas and countries as random intercepts, with participants nested within countries. In addition, we said we would also run a model that includes countries as random slopes of the effect of dimension type. Should the model converge and should the results differ from the simpler model proposed above, we planned to compare model fits using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and retain the model that better fits the data, while still reporting the other in supplementary materials. Based on recent reports that linear models might be preferable to logistic models in treatment designs 63 , 64 , we said we would run the same analysis using a linear model (instead of logit link) with the identical fixed and random effects and again adjudicate between the models using the AIC. We planned to follow up on any significant effects observed with post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrections. For the purposes of this analysis, we planned to use effect coding such that, for the binary response variable of argument type, the non-utilitarian trust response was coded as 0 and the utilitarian trust response as 1, and for the dimension type, instrumental harm was coded as −0.5 and impartial beneficence as 0.5. Again, the demographic covariates were grand-mean-centred; the gender variable was dummy coded with “woman” as baseline. P values were computed using Satterthwaite’s approximation for degrees of freedom as implemented in lmerTest. For analysis code, see https://osf.io/m9tpu/ .

Because there was evidence that public perceptions of lockdowns at the time of data collection were changing relative to July 2020 when we ran our pilots 87 , 88 , which may affect responses to the Lockdown dilemma, we planned to examine the robustness of our findings using two variations of the models described above, one that includes the Lockdown dilemma and another that omits it.

As some of the countries in our sample already implement mandatory and/or invasive contact tracing schemes at the time of writing (China, India, Israel, Singapore and South Korea), which may affect responses to the Tracing dilemma, we also planned to examine the robustness of our findings in these countries using two variations of the models described above, one that includes the Tracing dilemma and another that omits it. Furthermore, in this subset of countries we planned to examine an order effect to test whether completing the Tracing dilemma in the first task affects behaviour on the subsequent task.

Null hypothesis testing

In the event of non-significant results from the approaches outlined above, we planned to employ the TOST procedure 89 to differentiate between insensitive versus null results. In particular, we planned to specify lower and upper equivalence bounds based on standardized effect sizes set by our SESOI ( Power analysis and Table 2 ). For each of our two tasks, should the larger of the two P values from the two t tests be smaller than α  = 0.05, we would conclude statistical equivalence. For example, the minimum guaranteed sample size ( N  = 12,600; see Sample size for details) would give us over 95% power to detect an effect size of d  = 0.05 in the self-report task, yielding standardized Δ L  = −0.05 and Δ U  = 0.05, and an OR of 1.30 in the voting task, yielding standardized Δ L  = −0.15 and Δ U  = 0.15.

Sampling plan

We planned to complete the study online with participants in the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States (Fig. 1a ). We sampled on every inhabited continent and included countries that have been more or less severely affected by COVID-19 on a variety of metrics (Supplementary Fig. 1 ). Country selection was determined primarily on a convenience basis. In April 2020, the senior author put out a call for collaborators via social media and email. Potential collaborators were asked whether they had the capacity to recruit up to 1,000 participants representative for age and gender within their home country. After the initial set of collaborators was established, we added additional countries to diversify our sample with respect to geographic location and pandemic severity.

We planned to recruit participants via online survey platforms (Supplementary Table 1 ) and compensate them financially for their participation in accordance with local standard rates. We aimed to recruit samples that were nationally representative with respect to age and gender where feasible. We anticipated that this would be feasible for many but not all countries in our study (see Supplementary Table 1 for details). We originally anticipated sampling to take place over a 14-day period, but to allow for more representative sampling (after discussion with the editor), we collected data over a period of 27 days (26 November 2020 to 22 December 2020). All survey materials were translated into the local language (see Translations for details). Prior to the survey, all participants read and approved a consent form outlining their risks and benefits, confirmed they agreed to participate in the experiment and completed two attention checks. Participants who failed to agree to the consent or failed to pass the attention checks were not permitted to complete the survey (with the exception of participants in the United States and the United Kingdom, who due to recruitment platform requirements were instead allowed to continue the survey, and were only excluded after data collection).

Expected effect sizes

We informed our expected effect sizes by examining the published literature on utilitarianism and trust. Previous studies of social impressions of utilitarians reveal effect sizes in the range of d  = 0.19–0.78 (mean d  = 0.78 for the effect of instrumental harm on self-reported moral impressions; mean d  = 0.19 for the effect of impartial beneficence on self-reported moral impressions; mean d  = 0.55 for interactive effects of instrumental harm and impartial beneficence on self-reported moral impressions) 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 . However, there are several important caveats with using these past studies to inform expected effect sizes for the current study. First, past studies have measured trust in ordinary people, while we study trust in leaders, and there is evidence that instrumental harm and impartial beneficence differentially impact attitudes about leaders versus ordinary people 37 . Second, past studies have investigated artificial moral dilemmas, while we study real moral dilemmas in the context of an ongoing pandemic. Third, past studies have been conducted in a small number of Western countries (the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany), while we sample across a much wider range of countries on six continents. Finally, for the voting task, it is more challenging to estimate an expected effect size because no previous studies to our knowledge have used such a task.

Because of the caveats described above, we also informed our expectations of effect sizes with data from pilot 2, which was identical to the proposed studies in design apart from using The Red Cross instead of UNICEF in the voting task and the omission of the Tracing dilemma (see Pilot data in Supplementary Information for a full description of the pilot experiments). Pilot 2 revealed a conventionally medium effect size for the interaction between argument and moral dimension in the self-report task ( B  = 2.88, s.e. 0.24, t (452) = 11.80, P  < 0.001, CI [2.41, 3.35], d  = 0.55) and a conventionally large effect size for the effect of moral dimension in the voting task ( B  = 2.41, s.e. 0.33, z  = 7.30, P  < 0.001, CI [1.77, 3.13], OR 11.13, d  = 1.33).

Sample size

Sample size was determined based on a cost–benefit analysis considering available resources and expected effect sizes that would be theoretically informative 89 ( Expected effect sizes ). We aimed to collect the largest sample possible with resources available and verified with power analyses that our planned sample would be able to detect effect sizes that are theoretically informative and at least as large as expected based on prior literature ( Power analysis ). We expected to collect a sample of 21,000 participants in total, which conservatively accounting for exclusion rates up to 40% (Exclusions) would lead to a final guaranteed minimum sample of 12,600 participants.

Power analysis

We conducted a series of power analyses to determine the smallest effect sizes that our minimum guaranteed sample of 12,600 participants would be able to detect with 95% power and an α level of 0.005, separately for each main model (see Analysis plan for further details). To account for these two hypothesis tests, for all power analyses we applied Bonferroni corrections for two tests, thus yielding an α of 0.0025. Following recent suggestions 90 , 91 , results passing a corrected α of P  ≤ 0.005 are interpreted as ‘supportive evidence’ for our hypotheses, while results passing a corrected α of P  < 0.05 are interpreted as ‘suggestive evidence’. Power analyses were conducted using Monte Carlo simulations 92 via the R package simr 93 , with 1,000 simulations, using estimates of means and variances from pilot 2 (see Pilot data in Supplementary Information for a full description of the pilot experiments; note that, for the purposes of the current simulations, the race variable was omitted from data analysis because this variable is not readily comparable across countries). Data and code for power analyses can be found at https://osf.io/m9tpu/ .

First, we considered the interactive effect of moral dimension (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) and argument (utilitarian versus non-utilitarian) on trust in the self-report task. We estimated that a sample of 12,600 participants would provide over 95% power to detect an effect size of d  = 0.05 (power 99.3%, CI [98.56, 99.72]). This effect size is 9% of what we observed in pilot 2 and is the SESOI for the self-report task.

Next, we considered the effect of moral dimension (instrumental harm versus impartial beneficence) on leader choice in the voting task. We estimated that a sample of 12,600 participants would provide over 95% power to detect an odds ratio of 1.30 (power 95.8%, CI [94.36, 96.96]). This effect size is 9% of what we observed in pilot 2 and is the SESOI for the voting task.

Given that these SESOI values are detectable at 95% power with our guaranteed sample (total N  = 12,600), are theoretically informative and are lower than our expected effect sizes ( Expected effect sizes ), we concluded that our sample is sufficient to provide over 95% power for testing our hypotheses and that our study is highly powered to detect useful effects.

At the time of submission, online survey platform representatives indicated that, while it is normally feasible to recruit samples nationally representative for age and gender in most of our target countries, due to the ongoing pandemic, final sample sizes may be unpredictable and in some countries it would not be possible to achieve fully representative quotas for some demographic categories, including women and older people (see Supplementary Table 1 for details). We planned that, if this issue arose, we would prioritize statistical power over representativeness. If we were unable to achieve representativeness for age and/or gender in particular countries, we planned to note this explicitly in the Results section.

We planned to exclude participants from all further analyses if they met at least one of the following criteria: (1) they had taken the survey more than once (as indicated by IP address or worker ID); (2) they reported in a question about their residence (further described in Design ) that they lived in a country different from that of intended recruitment; (3) they did not answer more than 50% of the questions. In addition, participants would be selectively excluded from specific analyses if they (4) did not provide a response and are thus missing variables involved in the analysis or (5) failed the comprehension check (further described in Design ) for the task involved in the specific analysis.

Reporting Summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

All data and materials are openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) website at this link: https://osf.io/m9tpu/ . Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All analysis code (completed in R) are openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) website at this link: https://osf.io/m9tpu/ .

Wilson, S. Pandemic leadership: lessons from New Zealand’s approach to COVID-19. Leadership 16 , 279–293 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Levi, M. & Stoker, L. Political trust and trustworthiness. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 3 , 475–507 (2000).

Ferguson, N. et al. Report 9: impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College London http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/77482 (2020).

Fink, S. Worst-case estimates for U.S. coronavirus deaths. The New York Times (13 March 2020).

Flaxman, S. et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature 584 , 257–261 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hsiang, S. et al. The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature 584 , 262–267 (2020).

Alsan, M. & Wanamaker, M. Tuskegee and the health of Black men. Q. J. Econ. 133 , 407–455 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Christensen, D., Dube, O., Haushofer, J., Siddiqi, B. & Voors, M. J. Building resilient health systems: experimental evidence from Sierra Leone and the 2014 Ebola outbreak. National Bureau of Economic Research https://www.nber.org/papers/w27364 (2020).

Lowes, S. & Montero, E. The legacy of colonial medicine in Central Africa. Am. Econ. Rev. 111 , 1284–1314 (2021).

Udow-Phillips, M. & Lantz, P. Trust in public health is essential amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Hosp. Med. 15 , 431–433 (2020).

Blair, R. A., Morse, B. S. & Tsai, L. L. Public health and public trust: survey evidence from the Ebola virus disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc. Sci. Med. 1982 172 , 89–97 (2017).

Google Scholar  

Rubin, G. J., Amlôt, R., Page, L. & Wessely, S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey. BMJ 339 , b2651 (2009).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gilles, I. et al. Trust in medical organizations predicts pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccination behavior and perceived efficacy of protection measures in the Swiss public. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 26 , 203–210 (2011).

Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L. & Zani, B. Compliance with recommendations for pandemic influenza H1N1 2009: the role of trust and personal beliefs. Health Educ. Res. 26 , 761–769 (2011).

Maher, P. J., MacCarron, P. & Quayle, M. Mapping public health responses with attitude networks: the emergence of opinion‐based groups in the UK’s early COVID‐19 response phase. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 59 , 641–652 (2020).

Plohl, N. & Musil, B. Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: the critical role of trust in science. Psychol. Health Med . 1–12 (2020).

Dohle, S., Wingen, T. & Schreiber, M. Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of trust in politics and trust in science. Preprint at OSF https://osf.io/w52nv (2020).

Han, Q. et al. (2021). Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the pandemic: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Psychological Medicine, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721001306

Bramble, B. Pandemic Ethics: 8 Big Questions of COVID-19 (Bartleby Books, 2020).

Emanuel, E. J. et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 , 2049–2055 (2020).

Everett, J. A. C. & Kahane, G. Switching tracks? towards a multidimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 124–134 (2020).

Giubilini, A., Savulescu, J. & Wilkinson, D. COVID-19 vaccine: vaccinate the young to protect the old?. J. Law. Biosci. 7 , lsaa050 (2020).

Savulescu, J., Persson, I. & Wilkinson, D. Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics 34 , 620–632 (2020).

Savulescu, J. & Cameron, J. Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong. J. Med. Ethics 46 , 717–721 (2020).

Fried, C. Right and Wrong (Harvard Univ. Press, 1978).

Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Yale Univ. Press, 2002).

Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 1971).

Ross, W. D. The Right and the Good (Oxford Univ. Press, 1930).

Scanlon, T. What We Owe to Each Other (Belknap Press, 1998).

Liddell, K., Martin, S. & Palmer, S. Allocating medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 , e79 (2020).

Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D. & Greene, J. D. Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition 179 , 241–265 (2018).

Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I. & Bonnefon, J.-F. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 2332–2337 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kahane, Everett,G. et al. Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychol. Rev. 125 , 131–164 (2018).

Navajas, J. et al. Utilitarian reasoning about moral problems of the COVID-19 crisis. Preprint at OSF https://osf.io/ktv6z (2020).

Bostyn, D. H. & Roets, A. Trust, trolleys and social dilemmas: a replication study. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 146 , e1–e7 (2017).

Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A. & Crockett, M. J. Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145 , 772–787 (2016).

Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J. & Crockett, M. J. The costs of being consequentialist: social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 79 , 200–216 (2018).

Rom, S. C., Weiss, A. & Conway, P. Judging those who judge: perceivers infer the roles of affect and cognition underpinning others’ moral dilemma responses. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69 , 44–58 (2017).

Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J. N. & Hugenberg, K. The adaptive utility of deontology: deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 3 , 125–132 (2017).

Uhlmann, E. L., Zhu, L. (Lei). & Tannenbaum, D. When it takes a bad person to do the right thing. Cognition 126 , 326–334 (2013).

Trump, D. J. WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO! Twitter https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241935285916782593?s=20 (2020).

Patrick, D. Tucker. Carlson Tonight (2020).

Burke, D. Reopening the country: the dangerous moral arguments behind this movement. CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/23/us/reopening-country-coronavirus-utilitarianism/index.html (2020).

Rosenbaum, L. Facing Covid-19 in Italy — ethics, logistics, and therapeutics on the epidemic’s front line. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 , 1873–1875 (2020).

Fahey, R. A. & Hino, A. COVID-19, digital privacy, and the social limits on data-focused public health responses. Int. J. Inf. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102181 (2020).

Asher, S. TraceTogether: Singapore turns to wearable contact-tracing Covid tech. BBC News (5 July 2020).

From India to Cyprus, understanding the global debate over virus contact tracing apps. The Week https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/05/07/understanding-the-global-privacy-debate-over-coronavirus-contact-tracing-apps.html (2020).

Jeske, D in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Univ., 2014).

Breuninger, K. & Wilkie, C. Trump bans export of coronavirus protection gear, says he’s ‘not happy with 3M’. CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/coronavirus-trump-to-ban-export-of-protective-gear-after-slamming-3m.html (2020).

Trump administration secures new supplies of remdesivir for the United States. US Department of Health and Human Services https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/06/29/trump-administration-secures-new-supplies-remdesivir-united-states.html (2020).

Boris, J. Prime minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 3 June 2020. GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-at-the-coronavirus-press-conference-3-june-2020 (2020).

Kerris, M. Onze missie: de hele wereld een vaccin. NRC Handelsblad https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/05/14/onze-missie-de-hele-wereld-een-vaccin-a3999818 (2020).

Foot, P. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxf. Rev. 5 , 5–15 (1967).

Thomson, J. J. The trolley problem. Yale Law J. 94 , 1395–1415 (1985).

Kupferschmidt, K. The lockdowns worked—but what comes next? Science 368 , 218–219 (2020).

Gertz, G. in Reopening the World: How to Save Lives and Livelihoods (eds. Allen, J. R. & West, D. M.) 12–15 (The Brookings Institution, 2020).

Mehrotra, P., Malani, P. & Yadav, P. Personal protective equipment shortages during COVID-19—supply chain-related causes and mitigation strategies. JAMA Health Forum 1 , e200553–e200553 (2020).

Zhou, Y. R. The global effort to tackle the coronavirus face mask shortage. The Conversation http://theconversation.com/the-global-effort-to-tackle-the-coronavirus-face-mask-shortage-133656 (2020).

Bollyky, T. J., Gostin, L. O. & Hamburg, M. A. The equitable distribution of COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines. JAMA 323 , 2462–2463 (2020).

Liu, Y., Salwi, S. & Drolet, B. C. Multivalue ethical framework for fair global allocation of a COVID-19 vaccine. J. Med. Ethics 46 , 499–501 (2020).

Edelson, M. G., Polania, R., Ruff, C. C., Fehr, E. & Hare, T. A. Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions. Science 361 , eaat0036 (2018).

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dong, E., Du, H. & Gardner, L. An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20 , 533–534 (2020).

Gomila, R. Logistic or linear? Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000920 (2020).

Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J. S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

Gomila, R. Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 150 , 700–709 (2021).

Hellevik, O. Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Qual. Quant. 43 , 59–74 (2009).

Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68 , 255–278 (2013).

Clark, T. S. & Linzer, D. A. Should I use fixed or random effects. Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 3 , 399–408 (2015).

McNeish, D. & Kelley, K. Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychol. Methods 24 , 20 (2019).

Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S. & Baayen, H. Parsimonious mixed models. Preprint at a rXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967v2 (2018).

Wang, Y. A., Sparks, J., Gonzales, J. E., Hess, Y. D. & Ledgerwood, A. Using independent covariates in experimental designs: quantifying the trade-off between power boost and Type I error inflation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 72 , 118–124 (2017).

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H. & Raver, J. L. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness–looseness. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 , 1225–1244 (2006).

Gelfand, M. J. et al. The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: a global analysis. Lancet. Planet. Health 5 , E135–E144 (2021).

Schulz, J. F., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J. P. & Henrich, J. The church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation. Science 366 , eaau5141 (2019).

Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41 , 258 (1946).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bailey, A. H., LaFrance, M. & Dovidio, J. F. Is man the measure of all things? A social cognitive account of androcentrism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23 , 307–331 (2019).

Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Beninger, A. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 31 , 73–98 (2011).

Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M. & Zamir, S. Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. Am. Econ. Rev. 81 , 1068–1095 (1991).

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Preprint at a rXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823v1 (2014).

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82 , 1–26 (2017).

Blair, G., Cooper, J., Coppock, A., Humphreys, M. & Sonnet, L. estimatr: fast estimators for design-based inference, R package version 0.30.2 (2021).

Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P. & Herve, M. Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means, R package version 1.3 (2018).

Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J. Open Source Softw. 3 , 772 (2018).

Coppock, A. ri2: randomization inference for randomized experiments. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ri2/ (2020)

Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw. 33 , 1–22 (2010).

Barr, D. J. Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Front. Psychol. 4 , 328 (2013).

Bosman, J., Mervosh, S. & Santora, M. As the coronavirus surges, a new culprit emerges: pandemic fatigue. The New York Times (18 October 2020).

Santora, M. & Kwai, I. As virus surges in Europe, resistance to new restrictions also grows. The New York Times (9 October 2020).

Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M. & Isager, P. M. Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1 , 259–269 (2018).

Benjamin, D. J. et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 6–10 (2018).

Lakens, D. et al. Justify your alpha. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 168–171 (2018).

Brysbaert, M. & Stevens, M. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: a tutorial. J. Cogn. 1 , 1–20 (2018).

Green, P. & MacLeod, C. J. SIMR: an R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7 , 493–498 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Pilot data collection was supported by Prolific Academic. Data collection for the main study was supported by grants from the Yale Tobin Center for Economic Policy (M.C.); the British Academy, Leverhulme Trust and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SRG19\190050; J.A.C.E.); the Institutions for Open Science at Utrecht University (L.T. and M.S.), central internationalization funds of the Universität Hamburg and the Graduate School of its Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences (B.B. and M.A.D.); and CAPES PRINT (88887.310255/2018 – 00; P.B.) and CAPES PROEX (1133/2019; P.B.). L.T. furthermore acknowledges funding from NWO grant (016.VIDI.185.017) and the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant, funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2017S1A3A2067636). H.S. was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence Scheme, FAIR project (262675). D.C. was partly supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018R1D1A1B0704358). E.A., B.G., Y.L. and G.P. thank the University of Exeter Business School for funding their contribution to this research. N.S. gratefully acknowledges funding support provided by the Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, and ANID FONDECYT de Iniciación en Investigación 2020 (Folio 11200781). A.L.O. and F.H. gratefully acknowledge support from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (0213-00052B and 8046-00034A) and the Faculty of the Social Sciences at the University of Copenhagen. N.R. was partly supported by the Israel Science Foundation (540/20). A.M.B.P. was supported by the ESRC. W.J.B. was supported by a postdoc fellowship from the National Science Foundation (#1808868). V.C. was supported by the National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship under grant no. DGE1752134. S.S. was partly supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018R1C1B6007059). P.B. gratefully acknowledges support from CNPq (researcher fellowship 309905/2019-2). Y.M. gratefully acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 31771204) and Major Project of National Social Science Foundation (19ZDA363). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors thank members of the Crockett laboratory for feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript; J. Monrad for advice on scenario design; R. Gomila for statistical advice; J. Okoroafor, D. Shao and X. Wang for assistance; and J. Apel, A. Bidani, N. Breedveld, R. Calcott, R. Carlson, L. Alfaro Cui cui, A. A. Gálvez, N. Kim, F. Michelsen, M. Meinert Pedersen, A. Mokady, A. Oline Ervik, J. Yang, X. Zeng and M. Zoccali for assistance with survey translations.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Jim A. C. Everett, Clara Colombatto

Authors and Affiliations

School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

Jim A. C. Everett

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Clara Colombatto, William J. Brady, Megha Chawla, Vladimir Chituc, Srishti Goel, Alissa Ji, Caleb Kealoha, Judy S. Kim, Yeon Soon Shin, Yoonseo Zoh & Molly J. Crockett

Department of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Edmond Awad, Brit Grosskopf, Yangfei Lin & Graeme Pearce

Social and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, Brazil

Paulo Boggio

Department of Economics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Björn Bos & Moritz A. Drupp

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, South Korea

Dongil Chung

Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Frederik Hjorth & Asmus L. Olsen

State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing, China

Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Michel André Maréchal & Julien Senn

Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (SISSA), Trieste, Italy

Federico Mancinelli & Christoph Mathys

Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Christoph Mathys

Translational Neuromodeling Unit (TNU), Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Annayah M. B. Prosser

Department of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel

Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Nicholas Sabin

Department of Philosophy and Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway

Hallgeir Sjåstad

Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Madelijn Strick

Department of Psychology, Pusan National University, Busan, South Korea

School of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Lars Tummers

Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Monique Turner

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.J.C., J.A.C.E., C.C., V.C. and W.J.B. conceived the research. M.J.C., J.A.C.E., C.C., E.A., P.B., B.B., W.J.B., M.C., V.C., D.C., M.A.D., S.G., F.H., Y.M., M.A.M., C.M., A.L.O., A.M.B.P., N.R., N.S., J.S., W.S.-A., H.S., M.S., S.S., L.T., M.T., H.Y. and Y.Z. designed the research. M.A.M., J.S., M.J.C., J.A.C.E., C.C., H.S., L.T., N.S. and E.A. developed the voting task. J.A.C.E., V.C., M.J.C., C.C. and W.S.-A. wrote the moral dilemmas. C.C. conducted the power analysis in consultation with M.J.C., W.J.B., C.M. and N.R. C.C., J.A.C.E., M.J.C., W.J.B., C.M. and N.R. developed the analysis plan. C.C. analysed the data in consultation with M.J.C., J.A.C.E., W.J.B., C.M., N.R., M.A.M., J.S., N.S., E.A., A.J., Y.S.S. and J.S.K. J.A.C.E., C.C. and M.J.C. prepared the manuscript with feedback from all co-authors. M.J.C., J.A.C.E., C.C. and C.K. coordinated the implementation of the project. M.J.C., J.A.C.E., C.C., E.A., P.B., B.B., M.C., D.C., M.A.D., S.G., B.G., F.H., C.K., J.S.K., Y.L., Y.M., M.A.M., F.M., C.M., A.L.O., G.P., N.R., N.S., J.S., Y.S.S., H.S., M.S., S.S., L.T., H.Y. and Y.Z. contributed to data collection and/or translation. All co-authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Molly J. Crockett .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Arne Roets, Onurcan Yilmaz and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 overview of experimental design..

Across subjects, we randomized the order of the voting and self-report tasks, the order of dilemmas in the self-report task, and the order of leaders in the voting task.

Supplementary information

Pilot data; Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary Notes 1–13, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 and Supplementary Figs. 1–8.

Reporting summary

Peer review information, source data fig. 1.

Statistical source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data fig. 3, source data fig. 4, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Everett, J.A.C., Colombatto, C., Awad, E. et al. Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis. Nat Hum Behav 5 , 1074–1088 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01156-y

Download citation

Received : 09 September 2020

Accepted : 07 June 2021

Published : 01 July 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01156-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Evidence from 43 countries that disease leaves cultures unchanged in the short-term.

• Gian Luca Pasin
• Aron Szekely
• Giulia Andrighetto

Scientific Reports (2024)

Deontologists are not always trusted over utilitarians: revisiting inferences of trustworthiness from moral judgments

• Dries H. Bostyn
• Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar

Scientific Reports (2023)

Five years of Nature Human Behaviour

• Samantha Antusch
• Aisha Bradshaw
• Mary Elizabeth Sutherland

Nature Human Behaviour (2022)

The boundary conditions of the liking bias in moral character judgments

• Konrad Bocian
• Katarzyna Myslinska Szarek
• Bogdan Wojciszke

Scientific Reports (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Ethical Dilemma: 10 Heartbreaking Case Studies

Last updated on April 2, 2024 by Alex Andrews George

In a small village in Maharashtra, a teacher named Ravi and his wife Maya, a nurse, faced a tough choice after an earthquake.

The only hospital in the village was damaged, and they could only save one life with the limited medical supplies: Maya’s critically injured mother or a young and bright boy from Ravi’s school, who also needed urgent surgery.

Choosing between saving Maya’s mother, who meant everything to her, or the young boy, who represented the village’s future, was heartbreakingly difficult.

This story highlights the painful decisions we sometimes must make, where saving one life means losing another, testing our deepest values and principles.

Based on this story, we dive into the complex world of ethical dilemmas and moral conflicts, where choices are never black and white, and every decision carries the weight of unforeseen consequences.

Table of Contents

What is an ethical dilemma?

An ethical dilemma occurs when a person is faced with a situation that requires a choice between two or more conflicting ethical principles or values .

Add IAS, IPS, or IFS to Your Name!

Your Effort. Our Expertise.

Join ClearIAS

In such dilemmas, no matter what choice is made, some ethical principle is compromised.

The essence of an ethical dilemma is that it involves a difficult decision-making process where, typically, a clear-cut right or wrong answer doesn’t exist, or if it does, it may carry significant negative consequences for someone involved.

Definition of ethical dilemma

An ethical dilemma is a complex situation that often involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another.

It’s characterized by:

• Conflicting Values: Individuals or organizations must choose between competing ethical principles or values.
• No Perfect Solution: Each choice involves a compromise or violation of an ethical principle.
• Significant Consequences: The choices have significant potential impacts on the well-being or rights of individuals or groups.

5 Cases of Ethical Dilemma

Ethical dilemmas can arise across various fields and situations, reflecting the complexity of moral decisions in real-world scenarios. Here are more examples:

1. Loyalty to the employer vs. the moral obligation to protect the public and the environment

• An employee discovers that their company is engaging in illegal activities, such as dumping toxic waste into a river, which is both environmentally damaging and a serious health hazard to nearby communities.
• The employee faces an ethical dilemma between reporting the misconduct, potentially leading to legal action against the company and safeguarding public and environmental health, and remaining silent to protect their job and the livelihoods of their colleagues.
• Ethical Dilemma: Loyalty to the employer vs. the moral obligation to protect the public and the environment.

2. Upholding academic integrity vs. loyalty to a friend.

• A student witnesses a close friend cheating during an important exam.
• If the friend is reported and found guilty, they could face severe consequences, including failing the course or expulsion, which might ruin their academic career and future prospects.
• The student is torn between reporting the cheating, which is an honest action, and protecting their friend’s future.
• Ethical Dilemma: Upholding academic integrity vs. loyalty to a friend.

3. The safety of passengers vs. the safety of pedestrians

• Programmers of autonomous vehicles face an ethical dilemma in creating algorithms for unavoidable accidents.
• For example, if an accident is inevitable and the choice is between altering the vehicle’s path to avoid hitting a pedestrian, thereby endangering the passengers, or protecting the passengers at the cost of the pedestrian’s life, how should the car be programmed to act?
• Ethical Dilemma: The safety of passengers vs. the safety of pedestrians.

4. The duty to report news truthfully vs. the potential harm to public safety and societal peace

• A journalist obtains exclusive footage of a terrorist group committing an atrocity.
• Publishing the footage could inform the public about the severity of the situation and the threat posed by the terrorist group, but it could also spread fear, possibly lead to public panic, and serve the terrorists’ goal of gaining attention for their cause.
• Dilemma: The duty to report news truthfully vs. the potential harm that such reporting might cause to public safety and societal peace.

5. Upholding the client-lawyer confidentiality vs. the moral responsibility to prevent future crimes.

• A defence attorney knows their client is guilty of a serious crime and intends to commit similar crimes in the future.
• The attorney faces an ethical dilemma between maintaining client confidentiality, a cornerstone of legal ethics, and the moral obligation to prevent future harm.
• Ethical Dilemma: Upholding the client-lawyer confidentiality vs. the moral responsibility to prevent future crimes.

These examples highlight the range and depth of ethical dilemmas that individuals can face, requiring them to weigh competing values and principles against the backdrop of potential consequences for their actions or inactions.

UPSC Prelims Test Series 2024

Take All-India Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress!

Moral Conflicts

Ethical dilemmas and moral conflicts are closely related concepts that often overlap in discussions of ethics and morality, but they can be distinguished by their context and the nature of the choices they involve.

Ethical Dilemma

An ethical dilemma arises when a person must choose between two or more actions that have ethical implications, making it difficult to decide what is the right or wrong course of action.

Ethical dilemmas often involve a decision-making process where each option violates some ethical principle or value, leading to a situation where no choice is entirely free from ethical fault.

These dilemmas typically occur within a specific professional, societal, or organizational context and involve considering external codes of ethics, laws, or social norms.

Moral Conflict

Moral conflict, on the other hand, refers to a situation where an individual’s values, principles, or beliefs conflict, leading to an internal struggle about the right course of action.

Moral conflicts are deeply personal and subjective, focusing on an individual’s conscience and moral reasoning rather than external rules or codes.

While ethical dilemmas might require an individual to choose between competing external obligations or duties, moral conflicts involve a more introspective struggle with one’s values and beliefs.

Key Differences Between Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Conflict

• Context: Ethical dilemmas often involve a choice between actions in a professional or social context, where external codes of conduct or laws must be considered. Moral conflicts are internal struggles over personal values and beliefs.
• Nature of Conflict: Ethical dilemmas typically involve competing ethical principles or obligations, where adhering to one may lead to the violation of another. Moral conflicts are about reconciling conflicting personal morals or values.
• Resolution: Resolving an ethical dilemma often involves choosing the “lesser evil” or the option that upholds the most critical ethical principle in a given context. Solving a moral conflict might require personal reflection, growth, and a deeper understanding of one’s own values.

While they are distinct, ethical dilemmas and moral conflicts can occur simultaneously, complicating the decision-making process further.

A person might face an ethical dilemma at work (e.g., whether to report a colleague’s wrongdoing) that also triggers a moral conflict (e.g., loyalty to a friend versus commitment to honesty).

This interplay underscores the complexity of ethical and moral reasoning in real-world situations.

5 Cases of Moral Conflicts

Moral conflicts arise when individuals face situations requiring them to choose between two or more conflicting moral principles or values. Here are five examples illustrating such conflicts:

1. Honesty vs. Compassion

• Situation: You find out that a close friend has lied on their resume to get a job they desperately need.
• Conflicting Morals: The value of honesty (telling the truth or reporting the lie) conflicts with compassion (understanding your friend’s desperate situation and wanting to support them).

2. Loyalty vs. Justice

• Situation: A family member is involved in a minor legal infraction and asks you to provide them with an alibi to avoid consequences.
• Conflicting Morals: Loyalty to your family member, wishing to protect them, conflicts with your sense of justice and the importance of facing legal consequences for one’s actions.

3. Self-sacrifice vs. Self-preservation

• Situation: During a disaster, you have the opportunity to save others by putting yourself in significant danger, or ensure your own safety, knowing others might not survive.
• Conflicting Morals: The principle of self-sacrifice, putting the needs of others before your own, conflicts with self-preservation, the instinct to protect oneself from harm.

4. Equality vs. Meritocracy

• Situation: In a workplace, you must decide between promoting an employee who has worked longer at the company (seniority) and another who has shown exceptional skill and productivity but has less tenure.
• Conflicting Morals: The value of treating everyone equally and fairly conflicts with meritocracy, where rewards are based on individual achievement and capabilities.

5. Freedom vs. Security

• Situation: In governing a community, you must decide whether to implement strict security measures that infringe on personal freedoms to ensure public safety.
• Conflicting Morals: The importance of individual freedom and autonomy conflicts with the collective need for security and protection from harm.

These examples highlight the complexity of moral conflicts, where deciding in favour of one value inevitably leads to the compromise or negation of another , reflecting the nuanced nature of ethical decision-making.

Also read: Ethical Concerns and Dilemmas In Government And Private Institutions

The moments of ethical dilemmas and moral conflicts challenge us to weigh our values against the harsh realities of our circumstances, pushing us to make decisions that can redefine who we are and what we stand for.

The story of Ravi and Maya, the couple torn between family and community, serves as a poignant reminder of the complex nature of ethical decision-making .

Such dilemmas compel us to question not just our morality but the very essence of what it means to be human.

They remind us that there are no easy answers in the pursuit of doing what is right.

Whether it’s choosing between fairness and loyalty, or the welfare of one versus the greater good, these decisions are laden with the weight of potential regret and the hope for understanding and forgiveness.

In conclusion, ethical dilemmas and moral conflicts are not mere philosophical quandaries to be pondered from afar; they are real, lived experiences that test our integrity , empathy , and courage.

As we tread this precarious path, let us strive for a balance between our duties to others and our commitment to our principles, recognizing that we can confront and navigate these dilemmas that ultimately define our humanity.

The journey through these challenges is arduous and fraught with uncertainty, but it is also a testament to the strength and resilience of the human spirit, ever aspiring to a higher standard of morality and justice.

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2025 (Online)

₹95000 ₹59000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2026 (Online)

₹115000 ₹69000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2027 (Online)

₹125000 ₹79000

About Alex Andrews George

Alex Andrews George is a mentor, author, and social entrepreneur. Alex is the founder of ClearIAS and one of the expert Civil Service Exam Trainers in India.

He is the author of many best-seller books like 'Important Judgments that transformed India' and 'Important Acts that transformed India'.

A trusted mentor and pioneer in online training , Alex's guidance, strategies, study-materials, and mock-exams have helped many aspirants to become IAS, IPS, and IFS officers.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

UPSC Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Are you struggling to finish the upsc cse syllabus without proper guidance, take clearias mock exams: analyse your progress.

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your All-India Ranking

Case study: an ethical dilemma involving a dying patient

Affiliation.

• 1 Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NY, USA.
• PMID: 19105511

Nursing often deals with ethical dilemmas in the clinical arena. A case study demonstrates an ethical dilemma faced by healthcare providers who care for and treat Jehovah's Witnesses who are placed in a critical situation due to medical life-threatening situations. A 20-year-old, pregnant, Black Hispanic female presented to the Emergency Department (ED) in critical condition following a single-vehicle car accident. She exhibited signs and symptoms of internal bleeding and was advised to have a blood transfusion and emergency surgery in an attempt to save her and the fetus. She refused to accept blood or blood products and rejected the surgery as well. Her refusal was based on a fear of blood transfusion due to her belief in Bible scripture. The ethical dilemma presented is whether to respect the patient's autonomy and compromise standards of care or ignore the patient's wishes in an attempt to save her life. This paper presents the clinical case, identifies the ethical dilemma, and discusses virtue ethical theory and principles that apply to this situation.

Publication types

• Case Reports
• Blood Transfusion / ethics*
• Cesarean Section / ethics*
• Fatal Outcome
• Hemorrhage / therapy*
• Jehovah's Witnesses*
• Treatment Refusal / ethics*

Princeton Dialogues on AI and Ethics

Princeton University

Case Studies

Princeton Dialogues on AI and Ethics Case Studies

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and their deployment in society gives rise to ethical dilemmas and hard questions. By situating ethical considerations in terms of real-world scenarios, case studies facilitate in-depth and multi-faceted explorations of complex philosophical questions about what is right, good and feasible. Case studies provide a useful jumping-off point for considering the various moral and practical trade-offs inherent in the study of practical ethics.

Case Study PDFs : The Princeton Dialogues on AI and Ethics has released six long-format case studies exploring issues at the intersection of AI, ethics and society. Three additional case studies are scheduled for release in spring 2019.

Methodology : The Princeton Dialogues on AI and Ethics case studies are unique in their adherence to five guiding principles: 1) empirical foundations, 2) broad accessibility, 3) interactiveness, 4) multiple viewpoints and 5) depth over brevity.

• Business Ethics Cases
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• Business Ethics
• Business Ethics Resources

Find ethics case studies on bribery, sourcing, intellectual property, downsizing, and other topics in business ethics, corporate governance, and ethical leadership. (For permission to reprint articles, submit requests to [email protected] .)

In this business ethics case study, Swedish multinational company IKEA faced accusations relating to child labor abuses in the rug industry in Pakistan which posed a serious challenge for the company and its supply chain management goals.

A dog may be humanity’s best friend. But that may not always be the case in the workplace.

A recent college graduate works in the finance and analytics department of a large publicly traded software company and discovers an alarming discrepancy in sales records, raising concerns about the company’s commitment to truthful reporting to investors. 

What responsibility does an employee have when information they obtained in confidence from a coworker friend may be in conflict with the needs of the company or raises legal and ethical questions.

A manager at a prominent multinational company is ethically challenged by a thin line between opportunity for economic expansion in a deeply underserved community, awareness of child labor practices, and cultural relativism.

A volunteer providing service in the Dominican Republic discovered that the non-profit he had partnered with was exchanging his donor money on the black market, prompting him to navigate a series of complex decisions with significant ethical implications.

The CFO of a family business faces difficult decisions about how to proceed when the COVID-19 pandemic changes the business revenue models, and one family shareholder wants a full buyout.

An employee at an after-school learning institution must balance a decision to accept or decline an offered gift, while considering the cultural norms of the client, upholding the best interests of all stakeholders, and following the operational rules of his employer. 

A senior vice president for a Fortune 500 savings and loan company is tasked with the crucial responsibility of representing the buyer in a multi-million dollar loan purchase deal and faces several ethical challenges from his counterpart representing the seller.

Extensive teaching note based on interviews with Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz. The teaching note can be used to explore issues around whistleblowing, leadership, the blocks to ethical behavior inside organizations, and board governance.

• More pages:

A case study of ethical issue at Gucci in Shenzhen, China

• Published: 09 October 2012
• Volume 2 , pages 173–183, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Li Wang 1 &
• Robin Stanley Snell 2  

128k Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Gucci is a multinational company with over 270 directly operated stores worldwide, serving customers of elite goods, and generating billions of dollars revenue per year. It has an iconic, even noble, luxury brand image in the Greater China region, where its revenue increased by 35.6% in the first half of year 2011. Gucci has expressed its intention to accelerate the process of opening stores on the Chinese mainland. Recently, however, the company came under fire after five former employees from its flagship store in Shenzhen revealed information online about inhumane working conditions and labor mistreatment in the company. This paper focuses on events that took place in a Gucci flagship store located in Shenzhen, China.

This paper has two main research objectives. The first is to analyze why labor abuses (as exemplified in the Gucci case) are allowed to occur and persist in foreign-invested firms that are located in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The second is to develop a multi-stakeholder approach to preventing further abuses of this kind. The next section provides a description of the case, focusing on the ethically problematic labor management practices and arrangements and noting some legal violations. We shall then present three propositions regarding why some foreign firms operating in the PRC and host local governments ignore and/or tolerate labor abuses of this kind. We follow this with a section in which we apply two different approaches, traditional Confucian ethics on the one hand and modern labor rights theory on the other, to provide a robust ethical basis for stakeholders to argue from, while taking action to persuade others that such malpractices are ethically unacceptable. Next, after identifying four stakeholders for the Gucci case, we suggest how each of them may play a role in discontinuing and/or preventing future labor abuses. We conclude with some further theoretical and managerial implications.

Case description

The employees’ complaints.

On 8 October 2011, an open letter—<A Public Letter to the Top Management of Gucci from Former Employees who resigned collectively> was spread on the Internet. This letter was written by five former employees of the Gucci Shenzhen Flagship Store. In the letter, they alleged that employees caught an occupational disease, that there was one miscarriage attributable to excessive working hours and that there was no compensation for these hardships. Moreover, they stated that there were excessive restrictions on employees’ behavior, including the need to obtain permission before getting a drink or a snack, and strict limitations on toilet time. They stated that, while the restrictions were applied strictly to all frontline employees, including one who was pregnant, they were not applied to the managers. The letter also claimed that the employees had to pay compensation for any product that was stolen or went missing, even though these luxury products had already been insured. They also criticized Gucci’s goods exchange policies which appeared to be arbitrary and dependent on the manager’s mood. All in all, they accused Gucci of lacking systematic and humane management and complained that their rights and dignity were being violated.

Once revealed online, this report aroused widespread discussion among Internet users. Further information emerged, suggesting that the case also involved falsification of records about working hours, and the imposition of forced, unpaid overtime work. Gucci implemented a system of working one full day, followed by a day off. Officially, 1 day’s work was about 10 h. But the workers complained that, on their working days, they were required to clock off at a certain time to establish a false electronic record, and then continue their work, counting goods until two or three o’clock in the morning without compensation.

Some netizens labeled Gucci as a “sweatshop.” Many opined that the labor management practices of some multinational companies and brand owners failed to match their international status. Several days later, the Gucci headquarters in China issued a statement, saying that “Gucci does not and will not endorse or tolerate the alleged malpractices.” Gucci also stated that that the company had conducted thorough investigations and had implemented a series of measures, including the replacement of the store manager and assistant store manager. Meanwhile, the Human Resources Bureau within the Legal Department of Shenzhen’s Luohu District said they would further investigate the case. On 26 October 2011, Gucci and the former employees eventually arrived at a settlement in conjunction with Shenzhen Federation of Trade Unions.

How Gucci used the labor dispatch system

Dispatch is a labor management model which separates recruitment from employment. Relationships under the dispatch system are portrayed in Fig.  1 . The employee leasing companies have labor contracts with the workers, and they send workers to other companies in which these workers actually work. The labor contract relationship exists between the employee leasing companies and the dispatched workers, but the actual working relationship is between the workers and the companies in which they work.

Relationships under the dispatch system

In this form of employment, the company which actually “use” these workers is only responsible for paying wages, while other aspects, including social security and dismissal compensation are passed on to the employee leasing company. The labor dispatch arrangement serves to reduce the user companies’ costs and contractual responsibilities for the employee. They can incur lower training costs and are not required to make social security arrangements. Because of these features, this employment model is widely used in China. The Gucci stores in Shenzhen actually adopted an even more complex dispatch system, involving at least three employee leasing companies that were located in Shanghai.

Legal considerations

One legal consideration is that, although the labor dispatch system has been officially adopted as way of arranging temporary employment only, Gucci used the system to employ people for durations of more than 2 years. Another is that many of the Gucci store employees are female and that pregnant employees legally enjoy special labor protection. According to the “Labor Contract Law,” female workers during their pregnancy should not participate in the state’s third-grade physical intensive work. Such work is deemed not suitable for female workers; for female workers who are more than 7 months pregnant, there should be no overtime work, and they should not be required to join night shifts. Furthermore, it is a legal requirement that sufficient rest periods should be arranged for such employees.

Why do labor abuses happen in China?

Underpinning the legal considerations, the basic ethical issue in this case is the violation of labor rights, through non-remunerated and forced work, inhuman restrictions, and other unreasonable policies. Gucci is by no means the first multinational company that has been accused of operating a “sweatshop” in Asia. For example, Nike was involved in abusive practices in Indonesia (Krueger 2007 ). What is especially interesting about this case is that it involves retail employees rather than factory workers. Also notable is that such labor abuses are generally uncommon in the Western countries, where these multinational corporations (MNCs) are quartered. Why did they come to China and “collectively fall ill”? We envisage that there are three possible reasons: First, overtime work without payment and other illegal employment arrangements are tolerated among local firms, and when foreign brands and multinational companies come to China, it is an easy temptation for them to slide into these malpractices, while giving themselves the excuse that it is a way of “adapting to the environment” (Hofstede 1993 ), i.e., moral relativism. Hence,

Proposition One: A philosophy of moral relativism allows some foreign firms in China to level down to abusive but locally condoned labor management practices.

The second possible reason for the persistence of labor abuses in China involving MNCs is that these large companies do not pay attention to the labor laws, let alone lobby to strengthen the laws and their enforcement, because they think their investment will furnish the local government with a good-looking GDP and that this is all that matters to them. Hence,

Proposition Two: Some foreign firms in China are preoccupied with economic goals, assume that local governments share their preoccupation, and believe that, because of shared economic imperatives, they can ignore the labor laws with impunity (Gao 2009 ; Ip 2009 ; McDonald 1995 ).

The third reason is closely related to the second one and concerns how the pressures faced by local governments are reflected in their actual preoccupations. Despite movement toward the balancing of economic imperatives with social and environmental concerns under the “Harmonious Society” policy platform (See 2009 ), local governments still remain under pressure to meet economic targets. Although there is a considerable body of labor laws in the PRC, officials may perceive there is little risk of being punished if it is discovered that they have failed to enforce them. Furthermore, some local governments may be afraid that the strict implementation of the labor law will drive investors away and may consciously turn a blind eye to illegal and unethical practices by firms under their purview, resulting in lax monitoring and non-enforcement.

Proposition Three: Because some local governments perceive that economic imperatives override social responsibility concerns, they are lax in enforcing labor laws.

Two perspectives—how can we tell right from wrong?

We shall draw on two very different perspectives to conduct a moral evaluation of the labor management practices in the Gucci case. The first perspective is that of traditional Confucian ethics, the second is modern labor rights theory.

Confucianism

The core of Confucian ethics is comprised of five values. We shall focus on three of them—Ren, Yi, and Li. Ren is a capacity for compassion or benevolence for fellow humans. It is essentially expressed in social relationships. One can have a harmonious relationship with others and thinking about others’ stakes when doing business draws on Ren (Wang and Juslin 2009 ). In effect, Ren expresses the Confucian formulation of the Golden Rule: People should not do to others things that they do not want others to do to them. Consideration for others, caring for others, and loving others means Ren. By contrast, in the Gucci case, the management operates only with the economic interest of company in mind, with no regard for workers’ basic needs. It abused the dispatch system for the sole purpose of lowering the cost of hiring people, without considering workers’ needs for adequate salaries, social insurance, training … etc, thereby failing to practice Ren.

Of equal importance in Confucian ethics is Yi, which concerns the morality of righteousness. It is the capacity to discern appropriateness and the right direction for actions, relationships, and other human matters. Helping people when they are in need is one expression of Yi, but in the Gucci case, Yi is absent. For example, the employee who was pregnant should have been treated with special care, and help should have been given to her when she needed it, but to the contrary, long working hours and strict working restrictions led to her miscarriage.

Third, Confucian morality is regulated by Li, or decorum. This consists of a body of norms, rites, and unwritten understandings that govern and regulate social action in every aspect of daily endeavor (Lau 1992 ). Respecting people and their dignity involves Li, but according to the employees’ allegations, the management did not respect their dignity. Subject to many unreasonable restrictions, they were treated as if they were mere instruments to make money, rather than as human beings with dignity, and did not receive due respect and appropriate treatment.

A related aspect of Confucianism concerns the respective duties of the parties in a dyadic relationship. The junior party has the obligation to serve and obey the senior party, and the senior party has the responsibility to teach, lead, and look after the junior party. Applied to modern employment relationships, this would entail a benign arrangement under which the employees would be recognized and cherished as a key stakeholder group of the company, with which the company would build and maintain a cooperative relationship and seek win–win outcomes. “Squeezing” rather than nurturing employees may save economic costs and lead to more profits in the short-term, but, as in this particular case, is likely to give rise to low morale among employees and may lead to emotional distress and physical harm. The long-term risks include that employees will make their grievances public and that the company’s reputation will be harmed as a result.

Labor rights

In the advanced Western economies, the moral basis of human rights has been incorporated into legal rights. There are strong and well-enforced government laws and regulations and established labor to advocate and negotiate on behalf of workers; well-developed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and independent media make problems transparent and advocate remedies. There are also high levels of citizenship education. Worker rights and protections have thus been institutionalized within a system of law and democratic political accountability, and are monitored by unions, NGOs, and educators. Through these processes, public expectations of the ethical behavior of corporations have become progressively stricter; cases of labor abuse still occur but appear to be relatively uncommon rather than endemic (Greenwood 2012 ).

In China, however, labor rights turn out not be widely institutionalized and legal rights turn out not to be strongly enforced, allowing employers as the stronger party to exploit the employees as the weaker party. While there are differences between Western countries and China, all people in the world share the need for some basic characteristics of human dignity that ought never to be violated, regardless of social context (e.g., whether one lives in a rich or poor society) and thus regardless of whether they have an abundance of employment choices or nearly none, or whether they have adequate institutional mechanisms to protect their interests.

It is ethically insufficient for corporations merely to “do in Rome as Romans do.” Expedient moral relativism should be replaced by broader and “thicker” moral norms that have universal application. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5 states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And Article 23 section (3) states that “Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.” The practices adopted by the management of Gucci in Shenzhen appear to have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Stakeholders and their relevant stakes

To prevent the further occurrence of abusive practices in labor management requires efforts from various groups. In working out who needs to do what, we first need to define who the relevant stakeholders are (Argandona 1998 ). According to Freeman ( 1998 ), the stakeholders are defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives.” That is, we need to identify which groups can be affected by these abuses and which groups can prevent them (Carson 1993 ; Maak and Pless 2006 ). Stakeholders include the following.

The company and its shareholders, whose stake is that the company’s reputation should be rebuilt. This scandal may disrupt Gucci’s expansion plans in China, so the company has a strong incentive to take positive action repair the harm to its reputation there.

Employees: Regardless of whether an employee has resigned or still remains in employment with Gucci, he or she will require apologies and appropriate compensation. In addition, the current employees are likely to desire the adoption of more systematic management methods and improved working conditions.

Chinese government: It is the Chinese government’s responsibility to ensure that worker’s rights are enforced, especially on its own territory and that companies operate in accordance with the laws there.

Foreign (home) governments: Foreign governments have a stake in every firm that is headquartered in their territory, including those with subsidies in overseas countries, such as China. They can take action to reduce the incidence of labor abuses in China by enacting laws that are similar to the anti-bribery treaties that have been passed in many countries (OECD 2001 ).

Possible solutions

Action coordinated by Gucci: One means for a solution is for Gucci to lead efforts in developing and implementing industry-wide and worldwide codes of ethics, thereby creating a comprehensive set of explicit norms and expectation about ethical standards. This code should apply to all branches and stores in both developed and less developed countries (Beschorner and Müller 2007 ). Such codes have been successfully implemented by industries such as toys, textiles, and electronics. Those kinds of products are sold to mass markets. It is something of a paradox that Gucci, which sells a high-end product, has provided a poor working environment in China; surely a company like this is even more subject to public scrutiny and now under public pressure to adopt higher standards. We do not wish to imply that employees in mass market industries should be treated any worse, but one may expecte high-end providers to exert stronger ethical leadership worldwide in improving labor standards. The code should require every branch and stores of companies in the luxury industry to embrace ethical principles and embed them into management systems and policies and internal review processes.

Informed by common areas of worker rights identified in the literature on international labor management ethics, this code could include items on the following: use of written employment contracts with all workers, avoiding abuse of the dispatch system, equal pay for work of equal value, prohibition of compulsory and unpaid work, adherence to laws and regulations on working hours, provision of wages and benefits not below minimum legal requirements, anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, anti-abuse, and respect for occupational health and safety.

In addition, the establishment of a socially responsible management systems should include a statement of social responsibility objectives and targets, along with sufficient human and financial resources to ensure that these objects and targets are clearly communicated, that the system is adequately implemented, and that there are mechanisms for regular monitoring and auditing of the system and for corrective action in the event of shortfalls (Carroll 1991 ; Carroll and Horton 1994 ; Gond et al. 2011 ).

Simply implementing an industry code is not enough. The headquarters of Gucci, Italy, should urge and encourage its branches in China to comply with the necessary ethical standards in China (and every other host country). The encouragement needs to be strong, because managements in China may seek excuses and claim that there would be inordinate financial costs, or that the code may be difficult to implement because of cultural barriers. The headquarters may arrange for auditing by independent third parties, such as NGOs. Otherwise the enforcement might be weak or non-existent.

Action by employees : “Tolerance” is deeply rooted in Chinese people’s thoughts, and most of the time, it is even considered as a virtue (in contrast to assertiveness). In this case, we may notice that employees were tolerant of abusive practices until severe harm actually happened (the female employee’s miscarriage). The Chinese workers’ awareness of their rights may have been weak, and they appear to be accustomed to enduring their unjust treatment, which perpetuates the abusive practices. As China’s capitalism has been rapidly evolving, the institutional arrangements involved in human resource management, such as the labor dispatch system, have become increasingly complex and subject to abuse. In order to protect employees, it is of utmost importance to challenge the mindset of tolerance and to equip employees with a strong awareness of rights and of suitable ways to protect themselves collectively. They should be encouraged to get together and make their voice heard (like writing a public letter on the Internet). By voicing their grievances, they can attract more attention, thus win more support, and the relevant government departments are more likely to investigate into their concerns. Furthermore, they could express their hope to form organizations which have similar functions to those of independent trade unions in western countries, thereby helping them gain bargaining power vis-à-vis employers (Preuss et al. 2009 ).

Action by the Chinese government : It is recommended that the Chinese government should revise its entire approach to the monitoring and regulation of labor rights. “Harmonious Society” pronouncements have been a step in the right direction (See 2009 ), but there is much further to go. Workers in China are under-protected because there are few organizations that workers can appeal to, and trade unions in China do not serve the same purpose as in Western countries. It’s difficult for workers to stand up for themselves when their rights are at stake. In Western countries, companies are under the scrutiny of various NGOs and trade unions; these organizations protect workers’ labor rights through collective bargaining power. On the surface, this is paralleled in China by The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which requires that all its citizens have the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably assemble, organize, demonstrate, and petition. However, in practice, in order to organize in mainland China (i.e., to establish an NGO), one has to register the organization according to the Social Organizations Registration and Administration Act. If the organization does not do this, it is not protected under the law. It is criminal for such an organization to publicly accept outside donations without a legal status. In addition, to establish such an NGO, they must have a regular business location, full-time staff, a registration capital of more than thirty thousand yuan and official documents with a stamp of approval from the governmental agencies, which have been designated as “supervising offices.” This complex and time-consuming process makes it virtually impossible to form a NGO in China unless the government is prepared to champion and support the process. Another barrier is that every non-governmental organization will be co-administered by a civil affairs governmental office. This unique “Chinese way” of double administration weakens the independence of an NGO. Nonetheless, the Chinese government could consider having experiments in certain industries. China is now the biggest luxury-product-consuming country, as well as the biggest luxury-product-manufacturing country, so it has both the biggest customer group and labor force of the luxury industry worldwide. The Chinese government should consider giving permission to set up such a non-governmental organization with independent powers, to monitor these luxury multinational companies’ operations in China.

Action by foreign governments : A foreign government is typically responsible for creating and enforcing laws that apply to all the companies operating in their country, including MNCs that are operating subsidiaries all around the world, including China. A Western country could simply enact a law requiring all companies to apply fair and decent labor standards worldwide. The detail of such legislation is of course a much more complex matter that we can discuss in this article. The basic idea is that, if a company violates labor standards in China, it could then be prosecuted in the home country by the respective Western government. This arrangement might be championed by supra-national bodies, such as the United Nations, but again, we do not have space in this article in detail of the legislation process; it would help greatly if there is close collaboration between the Chinese government, Western countries, and supra-national bodies.

Theoretical and managerial implications

There are some key theoretical and managerial implications of this case. The first of these concerns the limitations and possible distortions of the virtue-based approach to business ethics as it has been applied in China. While some managers may recognize that a virtue-based Confucian firm should seek harmony by expressing benevolence to its employees, who would reciprocate with loyalty and gratitude, some key aspects of this approach can be forgotten when facing modern economic pressures. What may be remembered by managements is that Confucian ethics is based on the premise of inequality between the senior and junior parties in the relationship and that the junior party is expected to go along with whatever treatment they receive without direct protestation. What may be forgotten by managements is that all this is premised on the assumption that the senior party should consider, respect, and be responsive to the needs of the junior party. Such empathic concern is unlikely to flourish without a channel for listening and without a powerful incentive to listen. In their absence, all-powerful managements become de-sensitized from the concerns of their employees, and labor abuses will ensue.

From this, a second implication can be inferred. In order to prevent labor abuses in the PRC, it is necessary to institute strong, legally based mechanisms for enforcing and protecting labor rights. Conveying legitimate bargaining rights to labor organizations that correspond to their independent trade union counterparts in the West is one key step in this process. The second key step is for the national and local governments in the PRC to join hands in assigning a higher priority to encouraging and supporting corporate social responsibility, no longer relegating this to an afterthought or empty, token slogan. This, in turn, implies a role for foreign firms and foreign governments. Strengthening legal safeguards for labor rights in Chinese organizations is likely to require cross-national dialogues within corporations and between foreign governments and the government of the PRC.

Does this need for legal underpinning imply that the Confucian cultural legacy has no role to play in underpinning labor rights and preventing labor abuses in the PRC? Actually, this is not the case. Although concern about the Confucian virtues appear insufficient to constitute a safeguard against ethical violations in China-based firms, the picture may be radically transformed if legal imperatives are introduced that would serve to remind managements about the need to listen, understand, and respond to the needs of their employees. Confucian values originated in ancient times, when “rule of man” prevailed and when modern rule of law was inconceivable. China, having rapidly and breathtakingly developed into a modern society within the last two decades, is probably ready now to undergo the truly revolutionary process of blending Confucian morality and the Western rights-based paradigm into a moral compass that is more suitable for the contemporary world (Snell 2001 ).

Conclusions

Allegations of abusive labor practices in MNCs are by no means new phenomena but have typically referred to manufacturing sites in less developed countries. This paper highlights a less-extensively documented phenomenon, featuring abuses happening at a retail store—Gucci’s Shenzhen flagship store. Specifically, Gucci abused the dispatch system, which is a labor system with Chinese characteristics, and neglected some key labor rights. In considering how an MNC can operate ethically in China, we have considered some universal interpretations of labor rights, while taking account of Confucianism and the One-Party state, which are foundational components of China’s culture and institutional framework (Liou 2010 ). We have made recommendations for action by MNCs and other stakeholders, namely, employees, the Chinese government, and even foreign governments, where these can exert legal influence over MNCs that are headquartered in their jurisdictions. We have also foreshadowed the possibility, in the near future, of a fusion between Confucian virtue ethics and Western rational–legal approaches to the assertion and protection of labor rights and the profound practical and theoretical implications that would ensue.

Argandona, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 , 1093–1102.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beschorner, T., & Müller, M. (2007). Social standards: toward an active ethical involvement of businesses in developing countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 73 , 11–20.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34 , 39–48.

Carroll, A. B., & Horton, G. T. (1994). Do joint corporate social responsibility programs work? Business and Society Review, 90 , 24–28.

Google Scholar  

Carson, T. L. (1993). Does the stakeholder theory constitute a new kind of social responsibility? Business Ethics Quarterly, 3 , 171–176.

Freeman, R. E. (1998). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In L. P. Hartman (Ed.), Perspectives in business ethics (pp. 171–181). Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

Gao, Y. (2009). Corporate social performance in China: Evidence from large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 89 , 23–35.

Gond, J.-P., Igalens, J., Swaen, V., & Akremi, A. E. (2011). The human resources contribution to responsible leadership: An exploration of the CSR–HR interface. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 , 115–132.

Greenwood, M. (2012). Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics , pre-published online before print, 24 May, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1354-y .

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Academy of Management Executive, 7 , 81–94.

Ip, P. K. (2009). The challenge of developing a business ethics in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (Supplement 1), 211–224.

Krueger, D. A. (2007). The ethics of global supply chains in China—Convergences of East and West. Journal of Business Ethics, 79 , 113–120.

Lau, D. C. (1992). Confucius: The analects . Translation, HK: Chinese University Press.

Liou, K. T. (2010). Government-business relations in Greater China and challenges for public administration. Paper presented at the symposium on Reform and Transition in Public Administration Theory and Practice in Greater China, 1978–2008, University of Hong Kong.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society. A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66 , 99–115.

McDonald, G. (1995). Business ethics in China. In H. Davies (Ed.), China business: Context and issue (pp. 170–187). Hong Kong: Longman.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2001). OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions . Paris: OECD.

Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of CSR: Implications for HRM and employee representation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 , 953–973.

See, G. K. H. (2009). Harmonious society and Chinese CSR: Is there really a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 89 , 1–22.

Snell, R. S. (2001). Moral foundations of the learning organization. Human Relations, 54 , 319–342.

Wang, L., & Juslin, H. (2009). The impact of Chinese culture on corporate social responsibility: The harmony approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 , 433–451.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lingnan University, 12D, Block B, Chong Yip Center, Whitty Street, Hong Kong Island, Hong Kong

Lingnan University, Room 209/3, 2/F, Simon and Eleanor Kwok Building, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong

Robin Stanley Snell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Wang .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wang, L., Snell, R.S. A case study of ethical issue at Gucci in Shenzhen, China. Asian J Bus Ethics 2 , 173–183 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-012-0024-6

Download citation

Received : 27 February 2012

Accepted : 25 September 2012

Published : 09 October 2012

Issue Date : July 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-012-0024-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Chinese Government
• Foreign Firm
• Multinational Company
• Foreign Government
• Confucian Ethic
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Clinical Ethics Services
• Ethical AI Services
• Custom Workshops
• Medical Student Education
• In the News
• Impact Videos and Stories
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Policies, Disclosures and Reports

Explore Our Resources

Search for case studies, audio interviews, videos, and more.

Search for:

Clear Filters

Filter by Type

• All Categories
• Case Studies
• Medical Ethics and Policy Guidance
• Shared Decision Making and Advance Care Planning

Filter by Category

• Ethical Theory and Principles (23)
• Informed Consent (6)
• Medical Ethics (35)
• Resource Allocation (10)
• Patient/Physician Relationship (43)
• Pediatrics (3)
• Public and Population Health (71)
• Religion and Morality (14)
• Advance Care Planning (42)
• End of Life Ethics (80)
• Biotechnologies and Genomics (1)
• Procreation and Reproduction (5)
• Research Ethics (17)

Case Study – A Multidisciplinary Healthcare Team Disagrees

Case Study – Whose Decision?

Case Study –Too little, too late… almost

Case Study – Trying to Honor Johnny’s Wishes

Case Study – “God will restore his leg. The doctors will see.” Patient Nonadherence.

Case Study – Moral Dimensions of Medical Negligence

Case Study – Moral Distress of Hospital Workers

Case Study – It’s been prescribed. She won’t take it. The Ethics of Non-Adherence

Case Study – Vaccinating Children

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 30 Apr 2024

When Managers Set Unrealistic Expectations, Employees Cut Ethical Corners

Corporate misconduct has grown in the past 30 years, with losses often totaling billions of dollars. What businesses may not realize is that misconduct often results from managers who set unrealistic expectations, leading decent people to take unethical shortcuts, says Lynn S. Paine.

• 23 Apr 2024
• Cold Call Podcast

Amazon in Seattle: The Role of Business in Causing and Solving a Housing Crisis

In 2020, Amazon partnered with a nonprofit called Mary’s Place and used some of its own resources to build a shelter for women and families experiencing homelessness on its campus in Seattle. Yet critics argued that Amazon’s apparent charity was misplaced and that the company was actually making the problem worse. Paul Healy and Debora Spar explore the role business plays in addressing unhoused communities in the case “Hitting Home: Amazon and Mary’s Place.”

• 15 Apr 2024

Struggling With a Big Management Decision? Start by Asking What Really Matters

Leaders must face hard choices, from cutting a budget to adopting a strategy to grow. To make the right call, they should start by following their own “true moral compass,” says Joseph Badaracco.

• 26 Mar 2024

How Do Great Leaders Overcome Adversity?

In the spring of 2021, Raymond Jefferson (MBA 2000) applied for a job in President Joseph Biden’s administration. Ten years earlier, false allegations were used to force him to resign from his prior US government position as assistant secretary of labor for veterans’ employment and training in the Department of Labor. Two employees had accused him of ethical violations in hiring and procurement decisions, including pressuring subordinates into extending contracts to his alleged personal associates. The Deputy Secretary of Labor gave Jefferson four hours to resign or be terminated. Jefferson filed a federal lawsuit against the US government to clear his name, which he pursued for eight years at the expense of his entire life savings. Why, after such a traumatic and debilitating experience, would Jefferson want to pursue a career in government again? Harvard Business School Senior Lecturer Anthony Mayo explores Jefferson’s personal and professional journey from upstate New York to West Point to the Obama administration, how he faced adversity at several junctures in his life, and how resilience and vulnerability shaped his leadership style in the case, "Raymond Jefferson: Trial by Fire."

• 02 Jan 2024

Should Businesses Take a Stand on Societal Issues?

Should businesses take a stand for or against particular societal issues? And how should leaders determine when and how to engage on these sensitive matters? Harvard Business School Senior Lecturer Hubert Joly, who led the electronics retailer Best Buy for almost a decade, discusses examples of corporate leaders who had to determine whether and how to engage with humanitarian crises, geopolitical conflict, racial justice, climate change, and more in the case, “Deciding When to Engage on Societal Issues.”

• 12 Dec 2023

Can Sustainability Drive Innovation at Ferrari?

When Ferrari, the Italian luxury sports car manufacturer, committed to achieving carbon neutrality and to electrifying a large part of its car fleet, investors and employees applauded the new strategy. But among the company’s suppliers, the reaction was mixed. Many were nervous about how this shift would affect their bottom lines. Professor Raffaella Sadun and Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna discuss how Ferrari collaborated with suppliers to work toward achieving the company’s goal. They also explore how sustainability can be a catalyst for innovation in the case, “Ferrari: Shifting to Carbon Neutrality.” This episode was recorded live December 4, 2023 in front of a remote studio audience in the Live Online Classroom at Harvard Business School.

• 11 Dec 2023
• Research & Ideas

Doing Well by Doing Good? One Industry’s Struggle to Balance Values and Profits

Few companies wrestle with their moral mission and financial goals like those in journalism. Research by Lakshmi Ramarajan explores how a disrupted industry upholds its values even as the bottom line is at stake.

• 27 Nov 2023

Voting Democrat or Republican? The Critical Childhood Influence That's Tough to Shake

Candidates might fixate on red, blue, or swing states, but the neighborhoods where voters spend their teen years play a key role in shaping their political outlook, says research by Vincent Pons. What do the findings mean for the upcoming US elections?

• 21 Nov 2023

The Beauty Industry: Products for a Healthy Glow or a Compact for Harm?

Many cosmetics and skincare companies present an image of social consciousness and transformative potential, while profiting from insecurity and excluding broad swaths of people. Geoffrey Jones examines the unsightly reality of the beauty industry.

• 09 Nov 2023

What Will It Take to Confront the Invisible Mental Health Crisis in Business?

The pressure to do more, to be more, is fueling its own silent epidemic. Lauren Cohen discusses the common misperceptions that get in the way of supporting employees' well-being, drawing on case studies about people who have been deeply affected by mental illness.

• 07 Nov 2023

How Should Meta Be Governed for the Good of Society?

Julie Owono is executive director of Internet Sans Frontières and a member of the Oversight Board, an outside entity with the authority to make binding decisions on tricky moderation questions for Meta’s companies, including Facebook and Instagram. Harvard Business School visiting professor Jesse Shapiro and Owono break down how the Board governs Meta’s social and political power to ensure that it’s used responsibly, and discuss the Board’s impact, as an alternative to government regulation, in the case, “Independent Governance of Meta’s Social Spaces: The Oversight Board.”

• 24 Oct 2023

From P.T. Barnum to Mary Kay: Lessons From 5 Leaders Who Changed the World

What do Steve Jobs and Sarah Breedlove have in common? Through a series of case studies, Robert Simons explores the unique qualities of visionary leaders and what today's managers can learn from their journeys.

• 03 Oct 2023
• Research Event

Build the Life You Want: Arthur Brooks and Oprah Winfrey Share Happiness Tips

"Happiness is not a destination. It's a direction." In this video, Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey reflect on mistakes, emotions, and contentment, sharing lessons from their new book.

• 12 Sep 2023

Successful, But Still Feel Empty? A Happiness Scholar and Oprah Have Advice for You

So many executives spend decades reaching the pinnacles of their careers only to find themselves unfulfilled at the top. In the book Build the Life You Want, Arthur Brooks and Oprah Winfrey offer high achievers a guide to becoming better leaders—of their lives.

• 10 Jul 2023
• In Practice

The Harvard Business School Faculty Summer Reader 2023

Need a book recommendation for your summer vacation? HBS faculty members share their reading lists, which include titles that explore spirituality, design, suspense, and more.

• 01 Jun 2023

A Nike Executive Hid His Criminal Past to Turn His Life Around. What If He Didn't Have To?

Larry Miller committed murder as a teenager, but earned a college degree while serving time and set out to start a new life. Still, he had to conceal his record to get a job that would ultimately take him to the heights of sports marketing. A case study by Francesca Gino, Hise Gibson, and Frances Frei shows the barriers that formerly incarcerated Black men are up against and the potential talent they could bring to business.

• 04 Apr 2023

Two Centuries of Business Leaders Who Took a Stand on Social Issues

Executives going back to George Cadbury and J. N. Tata have been trying to improve life for their workers and communities, according to the book Deeply Responsible Business: A Global History of Values-Driven Leadership by Geoffrey Jones. He highlights three practices that deeply responsible companies share.

• 14 Mar 2023

Can AI and Machine Learning Help Park Rangers Prevent Poaching?

Globally there are too few park rangers to prevent the illegal trade of wildlife across borders, or poaching. In response, Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) was created by a coalition of conservation organizations to take historical data and create geospatial mapping tools that enable more efficient deployment of rangers. SMART had demonstrated significant improvements in patrol coverage, with some observed reductions in poaching. Then a new predictive analytic tool, the Protection Assistant for Wildlife Security (PAWS), was created to use artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to try to predict where poachers would be likely to strike. Jonathan Palmer, Executive Director of Conservation Technology for the Wildlife Conservation Society, already had a good data analytics tool to help park rangers manage their patrols. Would adding an AI- and ML-based tool improve outcomes or introduce new problems? Harvard Business School senior lecturer Brian Trelstad discusses the importance of focusing on the use case when determining the value of adding a complex technology solution in his case, “SMART: AI and Machine Learning for Wildlife Conservation.”

• 14 Feb 2023

Does It Pay to Be a Whistleblower?

In 2013, soon after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had started a massive whistleblowing program with the potential for large monetary rewards, two employees of a US bank’s asset management business debated whether to blow the whistle on their employer after completing an internal review that revealed undisclosed conflicts of interest. The bank’s asset management business disproportionately invested clients’ money in its own mutual funds over funds managed by other banks, letting it collect additional fees—and the bank had not disclosed this conflict of interest to clients. Both employees agreed that failing to disclose the conflict was a problem, but beyond that, they saw the situation very differently. One employee, Neel, perceived the internal review as a good-faith effort by senior management to identify and address the problem. The other, Akash, thought that the entire business model was problematic, even with a disclosure, and believed that the bank may have even broken the law. Should they escalate the issue internally or report their findings to the US Securities and Exchange Commission? Harvard Business School associate professor Jonas Heese discusses the potential risks and rewards of whistleblowing in his case, “Conflicts of Interest at Uptown Bank.”

• 17 Jan 2023

Good Companies Commit Crimes, But Great Leaders Can Prevent Them

It's time for leaders to go beyond "check the box" compliance programs. Through corporate cases involving Walmart, Wells Fargo, and others, Eugene Soltes explores the thorny legal issues executives today must navigate in his book Corporate Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions.