(102) What neuroscience tell us about ethical decision-making

 ABSTRACT
This session reviews the science of decision-making  with a focus on such neuroscience concepts as biases, cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, and “group think."  These concepts will be applied to ethical decision-making, with a discussion on how each can adversely influence our ability to make thoughtful, well-informed decisions when facing ethical dilemmas.  The session concludes with strategies that can minimize the influence of these factors and create more positive, achievable outcomes. 

SUMMARY:
Decision-making is increasingly being understood to be based on a mixture of feelings and reason – with the mix of these two varying depending on the situation.  Ethical dilemmas require the individual to make decisions about difficult situations and are influenced by this mixture of feelings and reason.
A variety of factors influence our decision-making.   We bring our own biases, good and bad, to every situation; biases which influence our view of the situation and our approach to making decisions about that situation.  These biases include our views about professional dress, our political perspectives, and our opinions regarding clinical procedures. 
Willful blindness is the concept of that describes when a person could have known, and should have known something that instead the person strove not to see.  The individual may not “not seen” something, but his/her background, experience, and cognitive status influence the ability to fully know and understand. 
Cognitive dissonance occurs when our thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes are inconsistent with one another or the situation at hand.  This dissonance adversely influences our ability to attend and process information that we should seek or know, thereby reducing our decision-making in resolving dilemmas.
“Group think” occurs when the views of others influence us, often limiting our ability to consider information independently or to suggest approaches for resolution.
These features influence our decision-making approach when facing ethical dilemmas frequently with an adverse influence on our ability to make thoughtful, well-informed decisions.  They create the potential for incomplete review and analysis of the situation with the result of less than ideal decision-making. By application of strategies to minimize the influence of these factors, outcomes that are more positive are achievable. 
Ethical dilemmas are common in any work setting, where they are complicated by the legal, regulatory and policy requirements specific to that setting. A common approach to resolving ethical dilemmas – an ethical decision-making model - includes gathering information, review the situation to determine if there are any obligatory actions, consultation, and review of resources, brainstorming and selecting an action.
This presentation will review the science of decision-making, punctuated with numerous examples.  The session will include evidence-based strategies for mitigating the influence of factors such as bias, cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, and “group think,” with application to ethical dilemmas and the ethical decision-making process.  The session will be participatory, engaging the participants in discussion of the decision-making process, the adverse influences on decision-making, and application to ethical scenarios. 
 
References and Resources
ASHA Ethics web site: http://www.asha.org/Practice/ethics/
Biglan., A. (2015). The nurture effect:   How the science of human behavior can improve our lives and our world.  Oakland, CA:   New Harbinger Publications.
Bupp, H. (2012, November 20). 9 Upsetting Dilemmas.  The ASHA Leader.
Bupp, H. & Hasselkuss, A. (2012).  Honoring Patient Choices:  The ethical obligations of audiologists and speech-language pathologists.  Rockville, MD:  ASHA web seminar.
Chabon, S.S., Denton, D.R., Lansing, C.R., Scudder, R.R., Shinn, Jr., R..  (2007).  Ethics Education.  Rockville, MD:  American –Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Denton, D. R. (2008, Oct). Intentional versus negligent conduct:  A way to characterize ethics complaints adjudicated by the Board of Ethics.   ASHA web site. 
Hefferman, M. (2011). Willful blindness:  why we ignore the obvious at our peril.  London:  Walker Books.
Jandial, R. (2019). Neurofitness.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Kahnemn, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow.  New York:  Farrar, Struas, and Giroux.
Montague, R. Your brain is (almost) perfect. (2007).  Plume.
Portillo, R.B., Doherty, R.F. 92011). Ethical dimensions in the health professions.  St. Louis:  Elsevier Saunders.
Sharot, T. (2011).  The optimism bias:  A tour of the irrationally positive brain.  New York: Vintage Books.
Virginia Commonwealth University. (2013).  Real expectations.  Code of Conduct.  Richmond, VA:  VCU