Legal provisions on medical aid in dying encode moral intuition.

In recent decades, many jurisdictions have moved toward legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, alongside a near-universal increase in public acceptance of medical aid in dying. Here, we draw on a comprehensive quantitative review of current laws on assisted dying, experimental survey evidence, and four decades of time-series data to explore the relationship between these legislative transitions and change in moral attitudes. Our analyses reveal that existing laws on medical aid in dying impose a common set of eligibility restrictions, based on the patient's age, decision-making capacity, prognosis, and the nature of their illness. Fulfillment of these eligibility criteria elevates public moral approval of physician-assisted death, equally in countries with (i.e., Spain) and without (i.e., the United Kingdom) assisted dying laws. Finally, historical records of public attitudes toward euthanasia across numerous countries uncovered anticipatory growth in moral approval leading up to legalization, but no accelerated growth thereafter. Taken together, our findings suggest that the enactment of medical aid in dying laws, and their specific provisions, crystallize patterns in moral intuition.

Do moral values change with the seasons?

Moral values guide consequential attitudes and actions. Here, we report evidence of seasonal variation in Americans' endorsement of some-but not all-moral values. Studies 1 and 2 examined a decade of data from the United States (total N = 232,975) and produced consistent evidence of a biannual seasonal cycle in values pertaining to loyalty, authority, and purity ("binding" moral values)-with strongest endorsement in spring and autumn and weakest endorsement in summer and winter-but not in values pertaining to care and fairness ("individualizing" moral values). Study 2 also provided some evidence that the summer decrease, but not the winter decrease, in binding moral value endorsement was stronger in regions with greater seasonal extremity. Analyses on an additional year of US data (study 3; n = 24,199) provided further replication and showed that this biannual seasonal cycle cannot be easily dismissed as a sampling artifact. Study 4 provided a partial explanation for the biannual seasonal cycle in Americans' endorsement of binding moral values by showing that it was predicted by an analogous seasonal cycle in Americans' experience of anxiety. Study 5 tested the generalizability of the primary findings and found similar seasonal cycles in endorsement of binding moral values in Canada and Australia (but not in the United Kingdom). Collectively, results from these five studies provide evidence that moral values change with the seasons, with intriguing implications for additional outcomes that can be affected by those values (e.g., intergroup prejudices, political attitudes, legal judgments).

Human infants are aroused and concerned by moral transgressions.

Humans reason and care about ethical issues, such as avoiding unnecessary harm. But what enables us to develop a moral capacity? This question dates back at least to ancient Greece and typically results in the traditional opposition between sentimentalism (the view that morality is mainly driven by socioaffective processes) and rationalism [the view that morality is mainly driven by (socio)cognitive processes or reason]. Here, we used multiple methods (eye-tracking and observations of expressive behaviors) to assess the role of both cognitive and socioaffective processes in infants' developing morality. We capitalized on the distinction between moral (e.g., harmful) and conventional (e.g., harmless) transgressions to investigate whether 18-mo-old infants understand actions as distinctively moral as opposed to merely disobedient or unexpected. All infants watched the same social scene, but based on prior verbal interactions, an actor's tearing apart of a picture (an act not intrinsically harmful) with a tool constituted either a conventional (wrong tool), a moral (producing harm), or no violation (correct tool). Infants' anticipatory looks differentiated between conventional and no violation conditions, suggesting that they processed the verbal interactions and built corresponding expectations. Importantly, infants showed a larger increase in pupil size (physiological arousal), and more expressions indicating empathic concern, in response to a moral than to a conventional violation. Thus, infants differentiated between harmful and harmless transgressions based solely on prior verbal interactions. Together, these convergent findings suggest that human infants' moral development is fostered by both sociocognitive (inferring harm) and socioaffective processes (empathic concern for others' welfare).

Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs.

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.

Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation.

In online content moderation, two key values may come into conflict: protecting freedom of expression and preventing harm. Robust rules based in part on how citizens think about these moral dilemmas are necessary to deal with this conflict in a principled way, yet little is known about people's judgments and preferences around content moderation. We examined such moral dilemmas in a conjoint survey experiment where US respondents (N = 2, 564) indicated whether they would remove problematic social media posts on election denial, antivaccination, Holocaust denial, and climate change denial and whether they would take punitive action against the accounts. Respondents were shown key information about the user and their post as well as the consequences of the misinformation. The majority preferred quashing harmful misinformation over protecting free speech. Respondents were more reluctant to suspend accounts than to remove posts and more likely to do either if the harmful consequences of the misinformation were severe or if sharing it was a repeated offense. Features related to the account itself (the person behind the account, their partisanship, and number of followers) had little to no effect on respondents' decisions. Content moderation of harmful misinformation was a partisan issue: Across all four scenarios, Republicans were consistently less willing than Democrats or independents to remove posts or penalize the accounts that posted them. Our results can inform the design of transparent rules for content moderation of harmful misinformation.

Brain organoids, consciousness, ethics and moral status.

Advances in the field of human stem cells are often a source of public and ethical controversy. Researchers must frequently balance diverse societal perspectives on questions of morality with the pursuit of medical therapeutics and innovation. Recent developments in brain organoids make this challenge even more acute. Brain organoids are a new class of brain surrogate generated from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). They have gained traction as a model for studying the intricacies of the human brain by using advancements in stem cell biology to recapitulate aspects of the developing human brain in vitro. However, recent observation of neural oscillations spontaneously emerging from these organoids raises the question of whether brain organoids are or could become conscious. At the same time, brain organoids offer a potentially unique opportunity to scientifically understand consciousness. To address these issues, experimental biologists, philosophers, and ethicists united to discuss the possibility of consciousness in human brain organoids and the consequent ethical and moral implications.

Moral Improvement of Self, Social Relations, and Society.

There is always room for moral improvement. However, very few prior reviews have focused on the phenomenon of moral improvement of self, social relations, or society. We first consider prevailing notions of the self-concept by highlighting the niche of theory and research that identifies an improving self as a possible identity and basis of motivation to act better and to be better. Second, we discuss moral improvement in the context of social relations, especially the close interpersonal relations that should most facilitate moral improvement. Third, we examine the moral improvement of society, focusing on the factors that facilitate or inhibit caring about potential immorality despite the fact that issues such as inequality, discrimination, and the climate crisis seem to be morally distant and impersonal. Finally, we discuss future directions for theory, research, and application.

A moral trade-off system produces intuitive judgments that are rational and coherent and strike a balance between conflicting moral values.

How does the mind make moral judgments when the only way to satisfy one moral value is to neglect another? Moral dilemmas posed a recurrent adaptive problem for ancestral hominins, whose cooperative social life created multiple responsibilities to others. For many dilemmas, striking a balance between two conflicting values (a compromise judgment) would have promoted fitness better than neglecting one value to fully satisfy the other (an extreme judgment). We propose that natural selection favored the evolution of a cognitive system designed for making trade-offs between conflicting moral values. Its nonconscious computations respond to dilemmas by constructing "rightness functions": temporary representations specific to the situation at hand. A rightness function represents, in compact form, an ordering of all the solutions that the mind can conceive of (whether feasible or not) in terms of moral rightness. An optimizing algorithm selects, among the feasible solutions, one with the highest level of rightness. The moral trade-off system hypothesis makes various novel predictions: People make compromise judgments, judgments respond to incentives, judgments respect the axioms of rational choice, and judgments respond coherently to morally relevant variables (such as willingness, fairness, and reciprocity). We successfully tested these predictions using a new trolley-like dilemma. This dilemma has two original features: It admits both extreme and compromise judgments, and it allows incentives-in this case, the human cost of saving lives-to be varied systematically. No other existing model predicts the experimental results, which contradict an influential dual-process model.

Coordination and expertise foster legal textualism.

A cross-cultural survey experiment revealed a dominant tendency to rely on a rule's letter over its spirit when deciding which behaviors violate the rule. This tendency varied markedly across (k = 15) countries, owing to variation in the impact of moral appraisals on judgments of rule violation. Compared with laypeople, legal experts were more inclined to disregard their moral evaluations of the acts altogether and consequently exhibited stronger textualist tendencies. Finally, we evaluated a plausible mechanism for the emergence of textualism: in a two-player coordination game, incentives to coordinate in the absence of communication reinforced participants' adherence to rules' literal meaning. Together, these studies (total n = 5,794) help clarify the origins and allure of textualism, especially in the law. Within heterogeneous communities in which members diverge in their moral appraisals involving a rule's purpose, the rule's literal meaning provides a clear focal point-an identifiable point of agreement enabling coordinated interpretation among citizens, lawmakers, and judges.

Breakdown of utilitarian moral judgement after basolateral amygdala damage.

Most of us would regard killing another person as morally wrong, but when the death of one saves multiple others, it can be morally permitted. According to a prominent computational dual-systems framework, in these life-and-death dilemmas, deontological (nonsacrificial) moral judgments stem from a model-free algorithm that emphasizes the intrinsic value of the sacrificial action, while utilitarian (sacrificial) moral judgments are derived from a model-based algorithm that emphasizes the outcome of the sacrificial action. Rodent decision-making research suggests that the model-based algorithm depends on the basolateral amygdala (BLA), but these findings have not yet been translated to human moral decision-making. Here, in five humans with selective, bilateral BLA damage, we show a breakdown of utilitarian sacrificial moral judgments, pointing at deficient model-based moral decision-making. Across an established set of moral dilemmas, healthy controls frequently sacrifice one person to save numerous others, but BLA-damaged humans withhold such sacrificial judgments even at the cost of thousands of lives. Our translational research confirms a neurocomputational hypothesis drawn from rodent decision-making research by indicating that the model-based algorithm which underlies outcome-based, utilitarian moral judgements in humans critically depends on the BLA.

Vicarious punishment of moral violations in naturalistic drama narratives predicts cortical synchronization.

Punishment of moral norm violators is instrumental for human cooperation. Yet, social and affective neuroscience research has primarily focused on second- and third-party norm enforcement, neglecting the neural architecture underlying observed (vicarious) punishment of moral wrongdoers. We used naturalistic television drama as a sampling space for observing outcomes of morally-relevant behaviors to assess how individuals cognitively process dynamically evolving moral actions and their consequences. Drawing on Affective Disposition Theory, we derived hypotheses linking character morality with viewers' neural processing of characters' rewards and punishments. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine neural responses of 28 female participants while free-viewing 15 short story summary video clips of episodes from a popular US television soap opera. Each summary included a complete narrative structure, fully crossing main character behaviors (moral/immoral) and the consequences (reward/punishment) characters faced for their actions. Narrative engagement was examined via intersubject correlation and representational similarity analysis. Highest cortical synchronization in 9 specifically selected regions previously implicated in processing moral information was observed when characters who act immorally are punished for their actions with participants' empathy as an important moderator. The results advance our understanding of the moral brain and the role of normative considerations and character outcomes in viewers' engagement with popular narratives.

Moral injury: An unspoken burden of transplant surgery.

Moral injury in health care is characterized as the lasting psychological, biological, and social impact on providers that occurs following an adverse patient outcome. Moral injury can contribute to second victim syndrome and lasting psychological harm. Although many surgeons face moral injury due to patient acuity and the potential for intraoperative or postoperative complications, the transplant ecosystem compounds the impact of moral injury. Institutional blame placed on the transplant surgeon following a posttransplant death or graft loss is magnified by public reporting. Centers whose outcomes fall below threshold levels are subject to regulatory citation and financial loss. Moral injury can also result in risk aversion, limiting access to transplants for higher-risk candidates and reducing acceptance of marginal organs hurting donor families. Strategies to increase resilience, reduce accusation and blame, and focus on system quality improvement are vital to mitigate the impact of moral injury on transplant professionals. The transplant community must proactively work to reduce moral injury to protect surgeons, ensure access to life-saving transplant procedures, and avoid unnecessary organ offer declines.

People Endorse Harsher Policies in Principle Than in Practice: Asymmetric Beliefs About Which Errors to Prevent Versus Fix.

Countless policies are crafted with the intention of punishing all who do wrong or rewarding only those who do right. However, this requires accommodating certain mistakes: some who do not deserve to be punished might be, and some who deserve to be rewarded might not be. Six preregistered experiments (N = 3,484 U.S. adults) reveal that people are more willing to accept this trade-off in principle, before errors occur, than in practice, after errors occur. The result is an asymmetry such that for punishments, people believe it is more important to prevent false negatives (e.g., criminals escaping justice) than to fix them, and more important to fix false positives (e.g., wrongful convictions) than to prevent them. For rewards, people believe it is more important to prevent false positives (e.g., welfare fraud) than to fix them and more important to fix false negatives (e.g., improperly denied benefits) than to prevent them.

The life threat in hematopoietic allogeneic stem cell transplantation - an interview and focus group study on health care professionals' perspectives.

Understanding healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences with patients undergoing hematopoietic allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is crucial, given its dual nature of offering a hope for cure which on the other hand is accompanied by a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Yet, how HCPs experience their patients' existential threats remains unexplored. Qualitative thematic content analysis was employed to comprehend these experiences. This involved conducting three focus groups and 11 individual in-depth interviews with nurses and hematologists. We found that HCPs struggled to balance curative goals and the therapy's risks, while attempting to maintain their patients' hopes. The unpredictability of patient trajectories and their suffering burdened HCPs. Despite occasional disagreements within the team, (inter-)professional exchanges remained a crucial ressource, especially in addressing the patients' potential life threat. Team meetings and palliative care specialist supervisions were emphasized as vital for managing these challenges. HCPs sought support in communicating with patients about death-related issues and managing the transition from a curative to a palliative goal of care. Our research underscores the need for targeted support for HCPs and lays a groundwork for addressing their challenges. Trial registration number DRKS00027290 (German Clinical Trials Register). Date of trial registration January 10th, 2022.

A Palliative Care Curriculum May Promote Resident Self-Reflection and Address Moral Injury.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of formal palliative care education for surgical trainees, and the demanding nature of surgical training and exposure to challenging clinical scenarios can contribute to moral injury. We developed a palliative care curriculum to promote self-reflection, aiming to address moral injury in residents. METHODS: Five 1-h palliative care sessions were delivered over the academic year to all post-graduate year (PGY) levels covering the following topics: personal awareness, delivering bad news, surgical palliation for cancer pathology, surgical palliation for noncancer pathology, and urgent palliative care. The curriculum focused on reflection and small group discussions. The Moral Injury Symptom Scale-Health Professional was administered to assess feelings of moral injury. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared analysis, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the demographics and survey responses. RESULTS: 23 participants completed the preintervention survey, and 9 participants completed it postintervention. Over 50% of participants were PGY1 or PGY2 residents. Preintervention, 52% of participants reported feeling guilt over failing to save someone from being seriously injured or dying. 30% of participants reported that the feelings of guilt, shame, or distrust impaired their ability to function in relationships, at work, or other areas of life to at least a moderate degree. CONCLUSIONS: The described palliative care curriculum accomplishes several goals as follows: it educates residents on palliative care topics, teaches communication tools, encourages self-reflection, and provides space for building peer relationships. The ease of implementation makes this curriculum applicable across various types of institutions, offering the potential to positively impact surgical training on a national scale.

Enhancing Conceptual Clarity regarding the Construct of Moral Injury.

BACKGROUND: The construct of "moral injury" is used widely in the research literature and media to broadly describe the impact of events involving perceived violations of one's sense of right and wrong (herein referred to as "potentially morally injurious events" [PMIEs]). SUMMARY: In this theoretical review, we provided a brief overview of the "moral injury" construct and its limitations including the lack of consensus-drawn boundaries and operational definitions to guide hypothesis-driven research. We discussed whether this construct can be reliably distinguished from established psychiatric diagnoses and psychological constructs and the inherent challenges in separating or classifying the impact of high-magnitude stressful life events that likely form the majority of PMIEs. Assessments that purportedly measure "moral injury" are reviewed and limitations are discussed such as shared measurement variance with established psychological instruments. KEY MESSAGES: We identified conceptual strategies for investigating behavioral and neurobiological features of PMIEs that could be used to inform the field of traumatic stress. We concluded that the construct of "moral injury" may provide an interpretive framework for positing why someone may be beset by guilt, shame, and/or rage whereas existing psychiatric diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression provide comprehensive descriptions regarding what someone might experience following extremely stressful events. We proposed directions to better clarify the boundaries of "moral injury" versus established psychiatric categories that could be used to enhance the conceptualization and assessment of this construct.

Moral values and vaccination behavior in Russia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Effective persuasive communication necessitates message matching; the conveyed message should resonate with the recipient's characteristics, including individual moral values. While studies examining the relationship between moral values and vaccination behavior have been conducted in a limited number of countries, this study seeks to provide evidence on this relationship beyond Western democracies. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from November 4 to December 17, 2021, in Russia. Participants reported their COVID-19 vaccination behavior and completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, designed to measure the endorsement of moral values (n = 415). Regression analysis was employed to assess the association between each moral foundation and COVID-19 vaccination behavior. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that the moral foundations of Care, Loyalty, Fairness, and Sanctity significantly influence vaccination behavior. Individuals who strongly endorse Fairness (AME = -0.019; 95 % CI = -0.033, -0.005) and Sanctity (AME = -0.016; 95 % CI = -0.031, -0.002) were less likely to be vaccinated. Conversely, individuals endorsing Care (AME = -0.018; 95 % CI = -0.031, -0.005) and Loyalty (AME = -0.015; 95 % CI = -0.028, -0.001) were less likely to report refusal of vaccination. These results remain robust after adjusting for sociodemographic variables related to vaccination barriers. CONCLUSION: Our findings carry public health implications; an understanding of the moral psychology underlying vaccination behavior can facilitate more targeted and effective health communication. Employing skillfully crafted moral appeals may mitigate negative attitudes toward vaccination and enhance vaccination rates.

Moral injury among women military veterans and demand for cigarettes: A behavioral economic investigation using a hypothetical purchase task.

OBJECTIVES: Unlike the United States general population, veteran women - as opposed to veteran men - have greater smoking prevalence; yet, little is known regarding factors that influence smoking in veteran women. The purpose of this study was to begin examining the relationship between a psychological concept known as moral injury and demand for cigarettes among veteran women. METHODS: Veteran women who smoke (n = 44) were recruited for this cross-sectional study from Amazon MTurk, Reddit, and a veteran-serving non-profit organization in June-July 2023. Consenting participants received $2 for completing the cigarette purchase task (CPT), Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND), and the military version of the Moral Injury Symptom Scale (MISS-M-SF). We examined five CPT demand indices and calculated a modified exponential demand model stratified by moral injury severity status (i.e., probable vs. unlikely). RESULTS: Probable morally injured women exhibited significantly higher relative reinforcing value (RRV) for smoking than unlikely morally injured women (F1, 920 = 9.16, p = 0.003). Average cigarette consumption at $0 (i.e., Q0) was 48.56% higher (M = 22.24 vs. M = 13.55) in probable compared to unlikely morally injured women (p = 0.04, Hedge's g = 0.74). FTND scores were significantly correlated with Pmax (i.e., demand elasticity point) and Omax (i.e., maximum expenditure) values in both populations (rs = 0.42-0.68, ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary evidence of the relatively high RRV of smoking in morally injured veteran women. Continued research is needed to refine the characterization of this relationship.

Social cognition in adults with neurofibromatosis type 1.

OBJECTIVE: Adult patients with the genetic disease neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) frequently report social difficulties. To date, however, only two studies have explored whether these difficulties are caused by social cognition deficits, and these yielded contradictory data. The aim of the present study was to exhaustively assess social cognition abilities (emotion, theory of mind, moral reasoning, and social information processing) in adults with NF1, compared with a control group, and to explore links between social cognition and disease characteristics (mode of inheritance, severity, and visibility). METHOD: We administered a social cognition battery to 20 adults with NF1 (mean age = 26.5 years, SD = 7.4) and 20 healthy adults matched for sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Patients scored significantly lower than controls on emotion, theory of mind, moral reasoning, and social information processing tasks. No effects of disease characteristics were found. CONCLUSIONS: These results appear to confirm that adults with NF1 have a social cognition weaknesses that could explain, at least in part, their social difficulties, although social abilities are not all impaired to the same extent. Regarding the impact of the disease characteristics, the patient sample seemed slightly insufficient for the power analyses performed. Thus, this exploratory study should form the basis of further research, with the objective of replicating these results with larger and more appropriately matched samples.

How to conceive the dignity of the dead? A dispositional account.

In dealing with human corpses, notions of dignity play a decisive role, especially within legal texts that regulate a corpse's handling. However, it is quite unclear how the claim "Treat human corpses with dignity!" should be understood and justified. Drawing upon examples and problems from forensic medicine, this paper explores three possible lines of interpreting such demands: (a) positions that closely link the dignity of the human corpse to the dignity of the former living persons and (b) accounts that derive the dignity of the dead from consequentialist considerations. We argue that both lines heavily rely on contestable metaphysical claims and therefore propose an alternative account for the dignity of the dead. Our proposal (c) focuses on action-guiding attitudes and the symbolic value of the dead. Such a conception allows for a variety of morally appropriate groundings of individual attitudes. It avoids metaphysically troublesome premises and, at the same time, allows to classify certain actions and manners of acting as clearly inappropriate and blameworthy.