DECISION MAKING FACING ETHICAL CONFLICTS IN

THE STAGES OF TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL

EXERCISE

UNIT IV
MEMBERS
José Misael Ríos Loeza Jorge
Barragán Gonzales Ilse Dariela
Gutiérrez Salinas Rosalía Martínez
Francisco Gisel Espinoza Trujillo
Marlla Fabiola Hernández Salinas
CONTENT
UNIT IV............................................................................................................................................1
CONTENT....................................................................................................................................1
YO. Conflict resolution and ethical-professional issues in psychology........................................2
II. Criteria to consider when making decisions in the face of conflicts and ethical dilemmas.....7
III. Arbitration of professional ethics problems.......................................................................8
ARBITRATION........................................................................................................................9
Example 3..................................................................................................................................9
Example 4................................................................................................................................10
IV. Sociodrama: role of the psychologist and ethical decision making.................................11
a) Thompson and Thompson's ethical decision-making model............................................11
b) Brody and Payton's Ethical Decision-Making Models.....................................................12
c) Curtin and Flaherty's model for ethical decision making.................................................15
d) Models for ethical decision making – deontological and utilitarian, as described by Ann
Davis........................................................................................................................................18
I.

1. Solution of conflicts and affairs ethical- • José Misael Ríos Loeza

professionals in psychology. • Jorge Barragan
Gonzales

2. Criteria to consider in decision making

facing conflicts and ethical dilemmas.
• Ilse Dariela Gutiérrez
Salinas

3. Arbitration of professional ethics problems. • Rosalía Martínez

Francisco

Sociodrama: role of the psychologist and decision-

4.
making • Gisel Espinoza Trujillo
ethical decisions • Marlla Fabiola
Hernandez Salinas

N. Issue Responsible
1| Page
 YO. Conflict resolution and ethical-professional issues in
psychology.

Psychoethics is a topic of growing interest in many countries. The ethical dilemmas

raised by the practice of psychologists and psychiatrists are not new. But what is recent is that
systematic psychoethical training is being included in the normal curricula of the faculties or
departments of psychology and psychiatry at universities. The great concern of Psychoethics is
to clarify - in a systematic and methodical way - which are the specific occasions of psychological
and psychiatric practice in which dilemmas or ethical values are put into play. On the other hand,
it seeks to move from “diagnosis” to “treatment” and formulate, in an interactive and consensual
manner, those appropriate procedures for the correct resolution of these conflict points.

1. The ethical implication of the “technical” structuring of the relationship.

a) Scholastic dogmatism. We are referring to the attitude of the psychologist or

psychiatrist who assumes that his or her own orientation or psychological school is
capable of optimally responding to all the problems raised. by the patients.
With that budget
“dogmatic”, the mental health professional can box patients into a certain lane,
without being able to refer them to professionals who, due to their own
psychotherapeutic orientation, could be better able to help the particular problem that
the patient presents. This has directly to do with the ethical problems of theoretical
and practical training, received in the respective university schools, both for
psychologists and psychiatrists.
b) The attitude of reckless imprudence: is that of the psychologist or psychiatrist who
agrees to treat a patient using therapeutic procedures or dynamics that he is not
qualified to use. Let's think about the case of the psychologist who has practiced
individual psychodynamic psychotherapy for 10 years with adult clients and who, after
an intensive weekend course in Couples Therapy, begins to practice this type of
therapeutic technique with some of his clients, while read bibliographic material about
it. Sometimes pressured by economic interests or personal prestige, certain
professionals exceed the levels of personal competence, with the consequent risk of
harming the patient. This is related to the responsibility of society - through its legal
system and ethical-social control - to establish the minimum requirements necessary

2| Page
 to effectively ensure the permanent training of the professional, once he or she
acquires the title that enables him to practice as a professional. such in society.
If “scholastic dogmatism” has to do with the basic theoretical orientation received by the
professional, “reckless imprudence” is more related to a permanent and subjective
attitude of the professional himself when he focuses his concrete practice. But both with
respect to one problem and the other, society - whether through official bodies or
professional organizations - must be permanently alert to avoid ethical problems that
may arise from one or another attitude, to the detriment of the mental well-being of
citizens.

2. Ethical aspects of the “ethical” structuring of the relationship.

a) The imperative of truthfulness. This is – without a doubt – one of the essential and
basic ethical assumptions of any “correct” relationship between a mental health
professional and a person. However, there are certain therapeutic procedures that
resort to deception to achieve certain purposes in the patient (e.g., certain techniques
used in some schools of Family Therapy). To justify them ethically, they rely on the fact
that if the individual is told the objective of a certain technique that is essential for
therapeutic change, its effectiveness is invalidated. However, the introduction of
“falsehood” as something “possible” in the professional relationship opens an important
question regarding what are the maximum ethically acceptable limits. The dynamic that
the therapeutic end justifies, in itself, certain means - in this case, lying - could be very
dangerous. We do not want to radically question “deceptive” procedures, but we
consider that they have to be specifically justified from an ethical point of view through
that process – so essential – that is confrontation with colleagues; although that does
not have to be the only acceptable form of ethical control.
b) Informed consent. Should the psychologist or psychiatrist request valid consent when
starting psychological or psychiatric therapy? What does it consist of? What are its
conditions? What is the minimum necessary that should be required to do so? If we
have previously affirmed the ethical imperative that every psychological or psychiatric
relationship must be radically based on the truth, it is because we consider it a right of
the patient to validly decide what concerns him without harming others. The way in
which a person is informed regarding the possibilities, expectations and discomforts that
may arise from starting a specific psychological relationship is essential from an ethical
point of view. This is because in psychology and psychiatry, unlike In other professional

3| Page
 relationships, an individual's ability to validly decide about himself or herself may be
absent or very limited. At the same time, the recovery of decision-making capacity is
something progressive and dynamic that does not appear from one moment to the next
but as a consequence of the same therapeutic process. Hence, the ethical imperative to
achieve consent is always a “prima fascie” duty, that is, “in principle”, as long as the
individual is in a position to do so. This horizon must always be present in the
relationship and the professional must be constantly attentive to not prolong a
paternalism that assumes a permanent inability to make decisions, which has ceased to
be such throughout the therapeutic process.
It could be objected that a significant percentage of consulting people do not have the
capacity to make valid decisions, precisely because of their psychological or psychiatric
problems. In fact, many mentally ill people will never have that capacity for informed
decision.
The solution for these circumstances is not to think that the professional should not seek
valid consent from the person involved in the relationship, but rather that Consent must
be given by the patient's family or legal representative. This is what has been called
Substitute Valid Consent. But in any case, this right to make the decision remains one of
the most basic imperatives of Psychoethics.
c) Confidentiality or professional secrecy. Although it is a very obvious issue, it is not
always fulfilled in the same way that its ethical imperative is understood. The disclosure
of data that belongs to the patient, without their authorization, can be done accidentally
or intentionally. It is important that the patient knows that their data will be compared
with the therapeutic supervisor - if necessary - and therefore, when starting the
relationship, they must give their consent in this regard. But apart from this “technical”
need, the confidentiality of patient data is not always protected as it should be.
Comments made to colleagues – without a purpose that has direct benefit in the therapy
of a specific client – are only one of the many ways in which the right to confidentiality is
violated. In other cases, the ethical obligation is the opposite: the professional must
reveal the patient's confidential data, even at the cost of professional disruption. Let's
think about people with severe depression, who threaten to commit suicide but do not
want to tell their partner or family, or go to a psychiatrist; or in paranoid subjects who are
at imminent risk of taking action and carrying out an attack on an innocent third party. In
both cases, the professional must break the ethical imperative of preserving
confidentiality because he or she yields the ethical norm to the Fundamental Principle:

4| Page
 the duty not to harm the basic premoral good: life; especially if it is that of the innocent
third party.

3. The ethically problematic consequences of the relationship.

a) The risk of manipulation. The justifiable boundary between the continuum of “respect
> guidance > persuasion > guidance” and “direction > suggestion > coercion >
imposition” is not always clear; especially for some psychotherapeutic techniques. The
risk of patient manipulation is at the heart of the ethical problem of psychological and
psychiatric practice. Among the different possibilities of carrying out this unethical
conduct, we highlight the following:
^ The imposition of personal values. It ranges from the attitude of the
psychotherapist focused on himself in such a way that he becomes incapable of
looking after the true interest of his patient, to the more or less conscious search
to influence the world of the person's values and philosophy of life. In this sense,
it is notable that the methodology used by some psychotherapies offers
particular risks of violating people's freedom if the psychologist does not worry
about being “alert” to that possibility. The imposition of values may have to do
with sexual roles and stereotypes in the couple, with the family ideal, with
political, religious, work, or ethnic values. We would like to highlight, in particular,
the imposition of values related to the religious aspect of life. This can occur - for
example - when the professional (who confesses to be an atheist) cares for a
patient (considered a believer) who consults for a religious problem. It could also
occur in cases where, in the name of a supposedly “healthy” religion, a certain
individual wants to be “liberated” from his or her membership in a “sect.” In this
sense, organized “brainwashing” actions have been discovered and
interventions by psychology professionals with these objectives have been
reported.
^ Economic exploitation. It may occur when the psychological or psychiatric
relationship continues without clear benefit for the patient, only for the
professional's pecuniary interest. On other occasions, resisting breaking the
relationship is not due to economic interest but to the psychoaffective dynamics
of the psychologist or psychiatrist who refuses to accept that the patient no
longer needs him or her.
^ Extra-therapeutic relationships. It is the issue of whether the human relationship

5| Page
 between the psychologist or psychiatrist and the person, outside the therapeutic
context, is convenient or inadequate. The issue has a wide spectrum and ranges
from the trivial contacts of the professional who is sharing the same social
environment with his patient, to the genital erotic relationship. Much has been
written on the point but it continues to be a topic that raises many ethical
questions. Within the same category of problems we can place the one referring
to the degree of intimacy that a therapist can share with his patient. Some
psychological and psychiatric schools or currents are decidedly against the
therapeutic relationship being bilateral and the professional sharing matters of
his own intimacy with his patient. On the other hand, other currents are favorable
and consider it a necessary ingredient for the therapeutic process. It is an open
and complex topic that raises many ethical questions that deserve to be
addressed in a more systematic way.
b) Ethical issues related to certain human groups. It is a problem that runs horizontally
throughout psychological and psychiatric practice, but to which we are only going to
allude without going into it. We refer to psychological or psychiatric care for children,
adolescents, the elderly and chronically mentally ill patients. In relation to all these
patients, there are third parties involved who are parents (in the case of children,
adolescents and chronically mentally ill patients) and children (in the case of the
elderly). Should the psychologist or psychiatrist be faithful to the adolescent or to his
parents, to the elderly or to his children? When do you assume that there must be
complete autonomy on the part of a given patient, (e.g., a 14-year-old adolescent) with
respect to the third parties presumably involved in his or her life? On the other hand,
let's think about whether the example provided by the following case does not happen
with certain frequency in professional practice: “GG completed his training program in
clinical psychology but did all his practice in the field of treatment with adults. Although
she has not taken courses in child development and psychology, she now wants to work
with children and has begun including them as clients. For this purpose, several
manuals on developmental psychology and child therapy have been provided” (Keith-
Spiegel, 1985).
c) Ethical aspects related to research in psychology and psychiatry. Clinical
experimentation is an old issue in the history of medicine; but here we are referring to
the investigation of the human psyche. When it comes to clinical trials with psychotropic
drugs, there are laws that optimally regulate the various ethical problems involved.

6| Page
 However, the ethics of psychological research with human beings deserves exhaustive
consideration that has yet to be done. Obviously, coercion on the freedom of research
subjects can occur from “banal” situations to those that are ethically scandalous. An
example of coercion - which I do not dare to qualify whether it would be banal or not - is
that of the psychology professor who invites his students to participate “freely” in a
research questionnaire, but when he sees that a student withdraws - because she does
not wants to answer - says out loud and with the intention of being humorous: “Well, I
hope the rest of you want to help me.”
d) Ethical aspects related to psychiatry and forensic (or legal) psychology . Both the
psychologist and psychiatrist have great power to legally stigmatize citizens. An expert
opinion by a mental health professional can make the difference between someone who
goes to prison and someone who is confined - for life - in a psychiatric hospital. The
word of “expert witness” from the mental health professional can make a judge decide to
give guardianship of a child - of a divorced couple - to the father, instead of giving it to
the mother, or vice versa. Let's think about a case like this: “A psychologist (CC) was
treating a woman (MA) who had many serious psychological disorders and was in the
process of divorcing. After he worked with her for 6 months, her lawyer asked him if he
would mind testifying before the judge - as part of the divorce proceedings - that MA
was a good, loving mother who was capable of maintaining custody of her children. his
7 year old son. CC agreed and did so.” As can be assumed, in cases analogous to this
one, the risks of harm that every psychologist has when acting as an expert are very
notable.

II. Criteria to consider when making decisions in the face of conflicts

and ethical dilemmas.

We must know what an ethical dilemma is; which means a situation that reflects
conflicting ethical positions, propositions or arguments. The ethical dilemma also presents two or
more alternative solutions that may be satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

There are three steps to carry out decision making, which are described below:

1- The first thing indicated for making ethical decisions is to analyze the situation to
answer the question: Do we have an ethical dilemma?
7| Page
 Some ethical dilemmas that we can encounter in professional practice or in everyday life
situations arise in situations that present conflict, among others, the following:

• Conflict between two ethical principles.

• Conflict between two possible actions in which there are some reasons in favor
and others against the action.
• Conflictof evidence.
• Conflictbetween two alternatives Nosatisfactory.
• Conflictbetween personal ethics andhe role professional.
• Conflictbetween ethics and law.

i- The second question is aimed at investigating:

-What information do we have?
-What additional information do we need?

-What additional information do we need but cannot get?

i- The third step is to decide: What method or model of ethical decision-making are we
going to use?

But for them we must keep in mind that the model to use must consider the following
criteria.

Sara Fry proposes a general framework to show the integration of essential content for
ethical decision making (Figure No. 1), in which the ethical convictions and values, the ethical
concepts that guide professional practice, the most used ethical approaches and the ethical
standards or codes that guide behavior are taken into consideration (Fry, 1994).

In other words, these are the criteria to consider when making decisions in the face of conflicts
and ethical dilemmas.

Personal Ethical concepts Rules of behavior Ethical

convictions in professional approaches
and values practice ethical

8| Page
 III. Arbitration of professional ethics problems.

The actions of professional psychologists do not always lead to satisfied clients and
happy faces. Sometimes expectations about psychologists' interventions are exaggerated.
Sometimes the result of an evaluation is disappointing, other times doubt has been cast
regarding the ethical level of the psychologist's behavior, and on other occasions the
psychologist's action is frankly perceived as a transgression of the boundary of decent
professional behavior.

In such a situation, psychologists are faced with possible breaches of ethical standards:
obviously, with the psychologist directly implicated as an alleged transgressor.

It requires professional maturity and some courage to look inside oneself critically and ask
whether the person who made the complaint could be right, and not easily allow oneself to fall
into defensive behavior, deliberately seeking justifications and excuses, or accusing the other.

ARBITRATION

This possibility of opening or reopening formal disciplinary proceedings is not the case after
arbitration if the association has considered offering this procedure instead of mediation. Also in
arbitration, the situation is viewed as a conflict between the complainant and the accused
psychologist. As in mediation, in arbitration the profession is formally kept out and failure to
comply with an ethical principle will not lead to disciplinary action. The fundamental difference
between mediation and arbitration is that in the latter a decision will be made, regardless of
whether the parties involved agree with it or not, since both agreed in advance to accept the
arbitrator's decision.

Example 3

Anna Fischler was referred by her family doctor to a psychologist for a psychological evaluation.
At her first appointment, Ms. Fischler arrived 20 minutes late after having trouble finding the
location of the psychologist's office. Since no agreement had been reached, there was no charge
for time lost due to their delay. Shortly before the time scheduled for the second appointment,
Mrs. Fischler canceled her appointment because her son had a headache. During their
telephone conversation, the psychologist told him that he would be charged for this appointment,
regardless of whether he showed up or not. So, he decided to go anyway, although with a

9| Page
significant delay. A few days later Anna Fischler received the invoice from the psychologist.

In her complaint, Anna Fischler maintained that she had understood that the psychological
diagnosis was established under the national health plan and therefore would not have to be
paid for by her. In the investigation into the complaint, the psychologist stated that the
appointment with Ms. Fischler for a clinical-psychological evaluation had been made by
telephone. A period was reserved for him from ten in the morning until noon and he was asked to
be punctual. In this telephone conversation, the psychologist told Ms. Fischler that if she was not
going to be able to keep the appointment, she should cancel 48 hours in advance, otherwise she
would be charged the full session fee. After Ms. Fischler arrived thirty minutes late for her first
appointment, she was again warned about the aforementioned cancellation conditions. To satisfy
her, the psychologist did not charge her for the thirty-minute delay. Furthermore, the second
appointment was canceled by phone 40 minutes before the scheduled time. Ms. Fischler stated
that she could not attend because she had to appear in court. The psychologist reminded him
again that appointments must be canceled 48 hours in advance, emphasizing that interventions
in trials are not scheduled 30 minutes before the start of a hearing. So Mrs. Fischler decided to
keep her appointment after all and came at 11:30 in the morning. The psychologist only charged
him for 90 minutes instead of 120. After several telephone conversations with both parties, the
arbitration board decided that Anna Fischler should pay the outstanding fees. DISCIPLINARY
PROCEDURES Whether because the complainant or the psychologist rejects the option of
mediation, closes it early, or because the association decides not to offer it as an option,
complaints can give rise to formal disciplinary procedures. An investigation will then take place
via the formal disciplinary procedure, whether a separate phase of the process or not. The
investigation will entail obtaining evidence from the complainant, the accused psychologist, and
from any other source that could be useful. From the beginning of a disciplinary procedure, the
psychologist needs to be aware of the prevailing ethical principles and code regulations that are
relevant in a difficult situation like this.

Example 4

Anton Berg, a clinical psychologist, was not surprised when he received a letter from the
Disciplinary Committee informing him that Ms. Groen had filed a complaint against him for
breaching the duty of confidentiality when contacting her family doctor. Berg was asked to give a
first reply, in the context of the investigation. Berg wrote an angry letter, stating that such a
complaint made by “someone with clear histrionic personality characteristics, which will

10| Page
undoubtedly have been recognized by the Disciplinary Committee, evidently has to be seen as
desperate vindictive behavior due to the collapse of his fantasies. erotomaniacs (see Ms.
Groen's story attached). Therefore, the complaint filed by Ms. Groen should be immediately
dismissed." Justified by the principle of "equality of arms" CASPER KOENE Monographic
Section 250 (balance of forces), psychologists could decide to breach their duty to maintain
confidentiality in order to appropriately substantiate his defense against the accusations.
However, psychologists are not completely free to do this. Ethical principles should still guide
your actions and are still subject to your code of conduct. Therefore, disclosing data about a
client's history should be done respectfully and restricted to those that are relevant and
necessary for their defense. Therefore, the use of psychological labels in this context could only
be seen as an attack on complainants in an undue attempt at disqualification and as a refusal to
maintain the due respect they deserve. Not only does it happen that psychologists flagrantly try
to disqualify complainants, but at least as serious are the attempts to categorically exclude
certain people from the ability to file complaints from the first moment.

IV. Sociodrama: role of the psychologist and ethical decision making

Sociodrama can be defined as the dramatized representation of a problem

concerning the members of the group, in order to obtain a more accurate experience of the
situation and find an appropriate solution.

This technique is used to present problematic situations, conflicting ideas, contradictory

actions, and then provoke discussion and deepening of the topic. It is very useful as a stimulus to
begin the discussion of a problem, in which case it is preferable to prepare the sociodrama in
advance and with the help of a previously selected group.

Another use of sociodrama refers to the deepening of previously discussed topics, in

order to specify the ideas, motivations, and main topics of the discussion in real situations. The
theatrical performance leaves the restlessness to go deeper into new aspects.

1. Models for ethical decision making

• Thompson and Thompson's ethical decision-making model.

11| Page
 • Brody and Payton models.
• Curtin and Flaherty's model for ethical decision making

a) Thompson and Thompson's ethical decision-making model.

This model was developed during the 70s and has been taken as a guideline to build
other models of ethical decision making. One of the key steps of this model is to identify
the decision or decisions that must be made, so that the people involved in this process
direct their efforts there. The model does not depend on a single person to make the
decision. Whoever makes the final decision can follow the indicated steps.

Phase 1. Review the situation to identify the problems, the decisions that need to be
made, the ethical aspects and the people involved in the situation.
Phase 2. Gather information to clarify the situation.
Phase 3. Identify the ethical issue of the situation.
Phase 4. Define the personal and professional moral and ethical position.
Phase 5. Identify the moral position of the key people involved in the situation.
Phase 6. Identify conflicts of values or principles, if they exist.
Phase 7. Determine who should make the decision.
Phase 8. Identify the scope of actions and anticipate results.
Phase 9. Decide on an action behavior, justify it and put it into practice.
Phase 10, Review and evaluate the results of the decision and action taken.

b) Brody and Payton's Ethical Decision-Making Models

In the early seventies Howard Brody developed the utilitarian and deontological models
for ethical decision making. These models have been useful in the analysis of the ethical
dimensions of situations related to health care, from any theoretical perspective. Rita
Payton developed the pluralistic model for ethical decision making, based on the work of
Brody and taking into consideration the pluralistic nature of many health care situations.
(Thompson and Thompson)

12| Page
Brody's Utilitarian Model for Ethical Decision Making

13| Page
Deontological model for ethical decision making, by Brody

14| Page
c) Curtin and Flaherty's model for ethical decision making

I. Background information

• Who is involved in the situation?

• What information is available? Scientific, cultural, sociological,
psychological?
• What additional information is required?

Relevance of the decision

II. Identification of the ethical component:

• First: Is this an ethical situation? (Use the criteria to decide whether or not it is
an ethical issue.)
a. It cannot be resolved or has the answer in scientific explanation.
b. It is a matter of a confusing nature.
c. It has implications that touch on various aspects of human and emotional
interest.

• Second: What ethical principles are involved in the dilemma?

a. Respect for autonomy.
b. Justice, equity.
c. Beneficence, goodness, benevolence. d. Non-maleficence

• Third: What is the ethical conflict?

a. Is it a case of conflict of rights?
b. Do duties conflict with possible adverse outcomes?
c. Does it have to do with lying or telling the truth?
d. Is it a matter of power vs. authority?

The more clarity of thought obtained at this stage, the better the overall
analysis will be.

15| Page
III. People committed to decision making
All people involved in decision-making must be identified and the nature of
their commitment must be specified. Sometimes you find that ethical
decision-making must be done by someone else. If this is so, based on your
decision, your ethical dilemma will be: How should you respond to the other
person's decision?
In other words your ethical decision may result or originate from another
person's decision. These are the questions you should ask yourself:
a. Who has authority to make the decision?
b. Who should make the decision, and why?
c. How much freedom does the person have to make the decision?

IV. Options, possible courses of action.

At this point of analysis it is asked to identify all the possible options and the
probable consequences of each of the options must also be projected and
predicted (as accurately as possible).
Both good consequences and those that will cause harm must be identified.
The moral and ethical principles and theories that underpin each option are
identified. For example:

• utilitarian
• Deontological
• Theory based in rights humans
• Personal or professional ethics.

•
V. Reconciliation of facts and beginning.
At this point it is requested to recognize that each person maintains points
of view, principles, beliefs and values about the situation. Put all of these
matters in some form of hierarchical order, so

so that you can appreciate which is more important in this specific situation,
while recognizing that the other points are also important in some way.

VI. Resolution, decision The resolution is not necessarily the same

16| Page
 thing than the action that is taken.
The solution has to do with the response and reflection that you yourself
make about:
a. Which moral theory do you consider best?
b. Which option is in line with this theory?
c. What options can I reject because they are not viable for me? d. Which
option is viable for me?
e. Is the problem better resolved with my participation or with my
withdrawal position? (Remember that there is also the decision to do
nothing.)
f. Can the situation be resolved better for me by submitting it or leaving it to
the consideration of authorities, or a pressure group? How do I feel if I
am left alone as a deserter?
VII. What you ultimately decide to do may or may not be influenced by social
customs or legal requirements.
But remember, neither the law nor social customs are always ethically
correct, and they cannot be confused with absolute standards of
righteousness and justice.
What you ultimately decide to do may or may not be influenced by social
customs or legal requirements. But remember, neither the law nor social
customs are always ethically correct, and they cannot be confused with
absolute standards of righteousness and justice.

17| Page
d) Models for ethical decision making – deontological and utilitarian, as described by
Ann Davis
Ethical decision making

• Question no. 1

Do we have an ethical dilemma?

Ethical dilemma: Situation with conflicting ethical propositions or arguments

• Question no. 2

What information do we have? Scientific? Sociocultural? Values?

What information do we need and cannot know?

• Question no. 3

What ethical decision-making model are we going to use?

18| Page
Deontological ethical model

19| Page
Utilitarian Ethical
Model

20| Page
 In conclusion, ethical decision making is a process that helps analyze situations
with ethical dilemmas to find the most appropriate way to act well in the face of
responsibilities as a citizen, as a professional and in our different roles in family life and in
society. society. Ethical decision making is based on the search and analysis of objective
information, as complete and up-to-date as possible, related to the situation that presents
an ethical or bioethical conflict. Dialogue, communication and a respectful attitude towards
the other or others are essential elements for discussion, analysis and argumentation
during the ethical decision-making process. It is important to know and understand the
meaning of values, concepts and principles of ethics, as well as ethical currents to base
decisions. Making ethical decisions allows us to review our actions in the face of ethical
dilemmas that arise and helps to seek and maintain the necessary coherence between our
way of thinking and acting. During educational and professional training processes it is
important to include basic knowledge and develop skills for making ethical decisions. The
methods, models or protocols for making ethical decisions serve as a guide to think
orderly, therefore, they must be selected and applied judiciously, in a reasoned manner,
not as steps that automate or pigeonhole our way of thinking.

21| Page