The notion of “integrity” is currently quite common and broadly recognized as complex, mostly due to its recurring and diverse application in various distinct domains such as the physical, psychic or moral, the personal or professional, that of the human being or of the totality of beings. Nevertheless, its adjectivation imprints a specific meaning, as happens in the case of “scientific integrity”. This concept has been defined mostly by via negativa, by pointing out what goes against integrity, that is, through (...) the identification of its infringements, which has also not facilitated the elaboration of an overarching and consensual code of scientific integrity. In this context, it is deemed necessary to clarify the notion of “integrity”, first etymologically, recovering the original meaning of the term, and then in a specifically conceptual way, through the identification of the various meanings with which the term can be legitimately used, particularly in the domain of scientific research and innovation. These two steps are fundamental and indispensable for a forthcoming attempt at systematizing the requirements of “scientific integrity”. (shrink)

The plethora of literature on moral distress has substantiated and refined the concept, provided data about clinicians’ (especially nurses’) experiences, and offered advice for coping. Fewer scholars have explored what makes moral distress _moral_. If we acknowledge that patient care can be distressing in the best of ethical circumstances, then differentiating distress and moral distress may refine the array of actions that are likely to ameliorate it. This article builds upon scholarship exploring the normative and conceptual dimensions of moral distress (...) and introduces a new tool to map moral distress from emotional source to corrective actions. The Moral Distress Map has proven useful in clinical teaching and ethics-related debriefings. (shrink)