Suppose that a patient is receiving treatment options from her doctor. In one case, the doctor says, “the surgery has a 90% survival rate.” Now, suppose the doctor instead said, “the procedure has a 10% mortality rate.” Predictably, the patient is more likely to consent on the first description and more likely to dissent on the second. This is an example of a framing effect. A framing effect occurs when “the description of [logically-equivalent] options in terms of gains (positive frame) (...) rather than losses (negative frame) elicits systematically different choices.” Framing effects are ubiquitous, but they are particularly troublesome in medicine. Many worry that there is tension between valuing informed consent and using framing effects in clinical settings. In this paper, I answer this question: if an individual is subject to a framing effect when she gives her consent, does this undermine the validity of her consent? I argue that framing effects do not undermine consent in general. (shrink)

Artificial Social Agents (ASAs), which are AI software driven entities programmed with rules and preferences to act autonomously and socially with humans, are increasingly playing roles in society. As their sophistication grows, humans will share greater amounts of personal information, thoughts, and feelings with ASAs, which has significant ethical implications. We conducted a study to investigate what ethical principles are of relative importance when people engage with ASAs and whether there is a relationship between people’s values and the ethical principles (...) they prioritise. The study uses scenarios, embedded with the five AI4People ethical principles (Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy, Justice, and Explicability), involving ASAs taking on roles traditionally played by humans to understand whether these roles and behaviours (including dialogues) are seen as acceptable or unacceptable. Results from 268 participants reveal the greatest sensitivity to ASA behaviours that relate to Autonomy, Justice, Explicability, and the privacy of their personal data. Models were created using Schwartz’s Refined Values as a possible indicator of how stakeholders discern and prioritise the different AI4People ethical principles when interacting with ASAs. Our findings raise issues around the ethical acceptability of ASAs for nudging and changing behaviour due to participants’ desire for autonomy and their concerns over deceptive ASA behaviours such as pretending to have memories and emotions. (shrink)

While nudging has garnered plenty of interdisciplinary attention, the ethics of applying it to climate policy has been little discussed. However, not all ethical considerations surrounding nudging are straightforward to apply to climate nudges. In this article, we overview the state of the debate on the ethics of nudging and highlight themes that are either specific to or particularly important for climate nudges. These include: the justification of nudges that are not self-regarding; how to account for climate change denialists; transparency; (...) knowing the right or best behaviours; justice concerns; and whether the efficacy of nudges is sufficient for nudges to be justified as a response to the climate crisis. We conclude that climate nudges raise distinct ethical questions that ought to be considered in developing climate nudges. (shrink)

The permissibility of nudging in public policy is often assessed in terms of the conditions of transparency, rationality, and easy resistibility. This debate has produced important resources for any ethical inquiry into nudging, but it has also failed to focus sufficiently on a different yet very important question, namely: when do nudges undermine a patient’s voluntary consent to a medical procedure? In this paper, I take on this further question and, more precisely, I ask to which extent the three conditions (...) of transparency, rationality, and easy resistibility can be applied to the assessment of voluntary consent too. After presenting two examples, designed to put pressure on these three conditions, I show that, suitably modified, the three conditions can remain significant in the assessment of voluntary consent as well. However, the needed modifications are very substantial and result in a rather complicated view. To propose a tidier solution, I argue that nudging undermines voluntary consent if and only if it cannot be ‘interpersonally justified’ to the patient. I use the three modified conditions to motivate the idea of interpersonal justification and also to further specify the principles it involves. My resulting view is especially attractive because it builds on already existing insights from the debate on nudging, updates those insights with an eye to medical consent, and finally unites them in an elegant and simple framework. (shrink)

So‐called nudge policies utilize insights from behavioral science to achieve policy outcomes. Nudge policies try to improve people's decisions by changing the ways options are presented to them, rather than changing the options themselves or incentivizing or coercing people. Nudging has been met with great enthusiasm but also fierce criticism. This paper provides an overview of the debate on the ethics of nudging to date. After outlining arguments in favor of nudging, we first discuss different objections that all revolve around (...) the worry that nudging vitiates personal autonomy. We split up this worry into different dimensions of autonomy, such as freedom of choice, volitional autonomy, rational agency, and freedom as nondomination. We next discuss worries that nudging is manipulative, violates human dignity, and prevents more important structural reform. Throughout, we will present responses that proponents of nudging can muster. On the whole, we conclude that the objections fail to establish that the nudge program as a whole should be rejected. At the same time, they give us important guidance when moving towards an ethical assessment of nudges on a case‐by‐case basis. Towards the end, we provide some possible ways forward in debates around the ethics of nudging. (shrink)

Libertarian paternalism describes the idea of nudging—that is, steering individual decision-making while preserving freedom of choice. In medicine, libertarian paternalism has gained widespread attention, specifically with respect to interventions designed to promote healthy behaviours. Some scholars argue that nudges appropriately balance autonomy and paternalistic beneficence, while others argue that nudges inherently exploit cognitive weaknesses. This paper further explores the ethics of libertarian paternalism in public health. The use of nudges may infringe on an individual’s voluntary choice, autonomy and informed consent, (...) but they are ethically justified when there is a clear public health benefit to the manipulation of choice. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 64-66.

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 68-69.

Drawing from the literatures on the ethics of nudging and moral bioenhancement, I elaborate several pairs of cases in which one intervention is classified as an environmental behavioral intervention (EBI) and the other as a neurochemical behavioral intervention (NBI) in order to morally compare them. The intuition held by most is that NBIs are by far the more morally troubling kind of influence. However, if this intuition cannot be vindicated, we should at least entertain the _Similarity Thesis_, according to which (...) EBIs and NBIs share relevant moral features to the extent that moral conclusions about one are implied about the other in the described pairs of cases. I test this thesis by putting forward a number of possible moral grounds for setting EBIs and NBIs apart, including three of the most promising ones – physical invasiveness, disclosure and avoidance, and inevitability. I conclude that although these promising grounds might not bear the full burden of vindicating the intuition against _Similarity_ by themselves, clustering them together can establish discernible moral separation. (shrink)

The widespread practices of data collection by third-party actors pose challenges to children’s and adolescents’ privacy when they navigate digital environments. Given that the informed-consent par...

Commitment devices (CDs) can help people overcome self-control problems to act on their plans and preferences. In these arrangements, people willingly make one of their options worse in order to change their own future behaviour, often by setting aside a sum of money that they will forfeit it if they fail to complete the planned action. Such applications of behavioural science have been used to help people stick to healthier lifestyle choices, overcome addictions and adhere to medication; they are acceptable (...) to many patients and even relatively small sums can be effective. Some authors have objected to the use of nudges in healthcare. Engelen has listed nine potential objections to nudges in relation to means (why nudge rather than persuade?), ends (what action is being promoted?) and agents (who is nudging whom?). These objections are shown to lack force in the context of CDs. Instead, an analysis specific to the ethical issues in CDs is employed. CDs exclude certain groups including so-called ‘naifs’ and risk increasing health inequality. CDs may promote the wrong behaviour and people might legitimately change their minds. Intermediaries might encounter perverse incentives. Approaches to overcoming these problems are described and eight key ethical considerations for those considering implementing CDs in the future are described. Altogether this paper illustrates the advantages of appraising the ethics of behavioural science in medicine on a case-by-case basis. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 74-76.

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 78-80.

In his recent article “Ethical Criteria for Health-Promoting Nudges: A Case-by-Case Analysis,” Bart Engelen (2019) develops a useful framework for evaluating health-related nudges in an attempt to...

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 60-61.

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 70-72.

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page W9-W13.

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 66-68.

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 72-74.

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 62-63.

Nudges are a way to steer people’s behavior through changes in how choices are presented. Nudge research has been incorporated into public policy in many countries, and nudge research, thus, has the potential to directly influence societies and individuals. As a result, research ethics for nudge research is needed to ensure that nudges developed are not instances of unethical manipulation of people. In this paper, I argue that two types of slippery slopes from ethically fine nudges to ethically problematic ones (...) can take place in nudge research. The conceptual slippery slope follows from (1) the broad way of defining nudges, (2) the multitude of different ways of understanding manipulation of people, (3) many manipulation definitions implying that some nudges are manipulative, and (4) some forms of manipulation of people being prima facie wrong. The empirical slippery slope rests, first, on the possibility of small steps from ethically acceptable to wrong nudges, and second, on the cognitive limits typical to human beings (including nudge researchers). Both slippery slope arguments imply the need to of nudge researchers to create so-called firebreaks. The firebreaks can take the form of ethical justifications. To avoid slippery slopes, certain types of arguments should be excluded from these justifications. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 80-81.