首页> 外文期刊>The Hastings Center report >Nudge or Grudge? Choice Architecture and Parental Decision‐Making Choice Architecture and Parental Decision‐Making
【24h】

Nudge or Grudge? Choice Architecture and Parental Decision‐Making Choice Architecture and Parental Decision‐Making

机译:轻推或怨恨? 选择架构和家长决策选择架构和父母决策

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein define a nudge as “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” Much has been written about the ethics of nudging competent adult patients. Less has been written about the ethics of nudging surrogates’ decision‐making and how the ethical considerations and arguments in that context might differ. Even less has been written about nudging surrogate decision‐making in the context of pediatrics, despite fundamental differences that exist between the pediatric and adult contexts. Yet, as the field of behavioral economics matures and its insights become more established and well‐known, nudges will become more crafted, sophisticated, intentional, and targeted. Thus, the time is now for reflection and ethical analysis regarding the appropriateness of nudges in pediatrics . We argue that there is an even stronger ethical justification for nudging in parental decision‐making than with competent adult patients deciding for themselves. We give three main reasons in support of this: (1) child patients do not have autonomy that can be violated (a concern with some nudges), and nudging need not violate parental decision‐making authority; (2) nudging can help fulfill pediatric clinicians’ obligations to ensure parental decisions are in the child's interests, particularly in contexts where there is high certainty that a recommended intervention is low risk and of high benefit; and (3) nudging can relieve parents’ decisional burden regarding what is best for their child, particularly with decisions that have implications for public health .
机译:摘要理查德·泰尔和卡斯·桑斯坦定义了一种轻推的“选择架构的任何方面,以可预测的方式改变人们的行为而不会禁止任何选择或大幅改变其经济激励措施。”关于挑战竞争性成年患者的道德规范,已经写了很多。少了一直是关于嘲笑代理人决策的道德的伦理以及这种情况下的道德考虑因素和论据如何不同。尽管儿科和成人情境之间存在根本差异,但在儿科的背景下,甚至都是关于小儿科在儿科的决策的少。然而,随着行为经济学的领域成熟及其见解变得更加成立和众所周知,旨在变得更加精心制作,复杂,故意和有针对性。因此,时间目前正在关于儿科缺点的适当性的反思和伦理分析。我们认为,在父母决策中努力甚至是别人的伦理理由,而不是与尊重自己的患者患者。我们提供三个主要原因:(1)儿童患者没有自治,可以侵犯(对某些言行的关注),努力不需要违反家长决策权; (2)努力可以帮助履行儿科临床医生,确保父母决策处于儿童的利益,特别是在高度确定性的背景下,建议干预低风险和高利益; (3)努力可以缓解父母对他们孩子最适合的毁灭性负担,特别是对于对公共卫生有影响的决定。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号