Validity and reliability of an instrument for assessing case analyses in bioengineering ethics education.

Assessment in ethics education faces a challenge. From the perspectives of teachers, students, and third-party evaluators like the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the National Institutes of Health, assessment of student performance is essential. Because of the complexity of ethical case analysis, however, it is difficult to formulate assessment criteria, and to recognize when students fulfill them. Improvement in students' moral reasoning skills can serve as the focus of assessment. In previous work, Rosa Lynn Pinkus and Claire Gloeckner developed a novel instrument for assessing moral reasoning skills in bioengineering ethics. In this paper, we compare that approach to existing assessment techniques, and evaluate its validity and reliability. We find that it is sensitive to knowledge gain and that independent coders agree on how to apply it.

The role of professional knowledge in case-based reasoning in practical ethics.

The use of case-based reasoning in teaching professional ethics has come of age. The fields of medicine, engineering, and business all have incorporated ethics case studies into leading textbooks and journal articles, as well as undergraduate and graduate professional ethics courses. The most recent guidelines from the National Institutes of Health recognize case studies and face-to-face discussion as best practices to be included in training programs for the Responsible Conduct of Research. While there is a general consensus that case studies play a central role in the teaching of professional ethics, there is still much to be learned regarding how professionals learn ethics using case-based reasoning. Cases take many forms, and there are a variety of ways to write them and use them in teaching. This paper reports the results of a study designed to investigate one of the issues in teaching case-based ethics: the role of one's professional knowledge in learning methods of moral reasoning. Using a novel assessment instrument, we compared case studies written and analyzed by three groups of students whom we classified as: (1) Experts in a research domain in bioengineering. (2) Novices in a research domain in bioengineering. (3) The non-research group--students using an engineering domain in which they were interested but had no in-depth knowledge. This study demonstrates that a student's level of understanding of a professional knowledge domain plays a significant role in learning moral reasoning skills.

From Lydia Pinkham to Bob Dole: what the changing face of direct-to-consumer drug advertising reveals about the professionalism of medicine.

From its founding in 1847, the AMA divided drugs into "ethical" and "unethical" preparations. Those that were ethical had a known composition and were advertised only to the profession. Other, patent medicines (technically proprietary drugs, whose trademarks were protected by copyright), were sold directly to the public. In spite of the AMA's efforts to ban the advertising and sale of those nostrums, proprietary drugs flourished during the nineteenth century. Starting in 1900, however, three major societal trends combined to bolster the AMA's campaign, and by 1920 almost all advertising was directed to physicians, who would then prescribe medications to their patients. This ban on advertising pharmaceuticals directly to the public remained virtually unchanged until approximately 1980. Since then, it has slowly eroded and, as recently as 1997, the FDA created guidelines for pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television. What does this change say about the profession of medicine, the role of the physician in society, and the doctor-patient relationship? Using a comparative historical approach, this paper examines these issues.

Superman meets Don Quixote: stereotypes in clinical medicine.

KIE: Drawing in part on her experiences as a "humanist-in-residence" on a neurological surgery service, the author discusses how stereotypic views held by and toward physicians and humanists interfere with the teaching of ethics to physicians and, indirectly, to the general public. She traces the development of these stereotypes over the past hundred years and suggests ways that they can be overcome to permit more effective working relationships between physicians and clinical ethicists.^ieng