• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

审议程序对功利主义医疗保健学生自我牺牲决策的影响。

The effect of deliberative process on the self-sacrificial decisions of utilitarian healthcare students.

机构信息

Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Mar 19;23(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00769-w.

DOI:10.1186/s12910-022-00769-w
PMID:35305638
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8933755/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted prosocial behavior as a professional healthcare core competency. Although medical students are expected to work in the best interests of their patients, in the pandemic context, there is a greater need for ethical attention to be paid to the way medical students deal with moral dilemmas that may conflict with their obligations.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the spring semester of 2019 on 271 students majoring in health professions: medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. All participants provided informed consent and completed measures that assessed utilitarian moral views, cognitive reflections, cognitive reappraisal, and moral judgment.

RESULTS

The healthcare-affiliated students who scored higher on the instrumental harm subscale in the measurement of utilitarian moral views were more likely to endorse not only other-sacrificial actions but also self-sacrificial ones for the greater good in moral dilemma scenarios. In particular, those engaged in deliberative processes tended to make more self-sacrificial judgments. The mediation analysis also revealed that the effect of deliberative processes on self-sacrificial judgments was mediated by cognitive reappraisal.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggested that cognitive reappraisal through deliberative processes is involved when the students with utilitarian inclination make prosocial decisions, that it is necessary to consider both moral views and emotional regulation when admitting candidates, and that moral education programs are needed in the healthcare field.

摘要

背景

COVID-19 大流行凸显了亲社会行为作为专业医疗保健核心能力的重要性。尽管医学生的工作应该以患者的最大利益为出发点,但在大流行背景下,需要更加关注医学生在处理可能与其义务相冲突的道德困境时的道德行为。

方法

本研究于 2019 年春季对主修健康专业(医学、牙科和兽医学)的 271 名学生进行,所有参与者均提供了知情同意书,并完成了评估功利主义道德观、认知反思、认知重评和道德判断的测量。

结果

在功利主义道德观测量中,在工具性伤害子量表上得分较高的医疗保健相关专业学生不仅更有可能支持为了更大的利益而采取其他牺牲行为,而且也更有可能支持自我牺牲行为。特别是,那些参与深思熟虑过程的人往往会做出更多的自我牺牲判断。中介分析还表明,深思熟虑过程对自我牺牲判断的影响是通过认知重评来介导的。

结论

这些发现表明,当具有功利倾向的学生做出亲社会决策时,通过深思熟虑的认知重评会参与其中,在招生时需要同时考虑道德观点和情绪调节,并且在医疗保健领域需要开展道德教育项目。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/7ee25aa5e89b/12910_2022_769_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/1848a8fc4681/12910_2022_769_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/488f289519ea/12910_2022_769_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/7ee25aa5e89b/12910_2022_769_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/1848a8fc4681/12910_2022_769_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/488f289519ea/12910_2022_769_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/48bd/8933957/7ee25aa5e89b/12910_2022_769_Fig3_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
The effect of deliberative process on the self-sacrificial decisions of utilitarian healthcare students.审议程序对功利主义医疗保健学生自我牺牲决策的影响。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Mar 19;23(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00769-w.
2
Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers.牺牲功利主义判断确实反映了对更大利益的关注:通过过程分离和哲学家的判断进行澄清。
Cognition. 2018 Oct;179:241-265. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018. Epub 2018 Jul 2.
3
Effects of perspective switching and utilitarian thinking on moral judgments in a sacrificial dilemma among healthcare and non-healthcare students.视角转换和功利性思维对医护专业与非医护专业学生在牺牲困境中道德判断的影响。
Curr Psychol. 2023 Feb 16:1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04380-z.
4
'Utilitarian' judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good.在牺牲性道德困境中做出的“功利主义”判断并不反映对更大利益的公正关切。
Cognition. 2015 Jan;134:193-209. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
5
Contextualizing sacrificial dilemmas within Covid-19 for the study of moral judgment.将新冠疫情背景下的牺牲困境纳入道德判断研究。
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 22;17(8):e0273521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273521. eCollection 2022.
6
Harming kin to save strangers: further evidence for abnormally utilitarian moral judgments after ventromedial prefrontal damage.伤害亲人以拯救陌生人:腹内侧前额叶损伤后异常功利主义道德判断的进一步证据。
J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Sep;23(9):2186-96. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21591. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
7
Moral Cognition About Harm in Anxiety Disorders: The Importance of Experienced Emotion.焦虑障碍中伤害的道德认知:体验情绪的重要性。
Psychol Rep. 2021 Dec;124(6):2501-2523. doi: 10.1177/0033294120964134. Epub 2020 Oct 7.
8
Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures.推理支持功利主义的解决方案,以解决各种道德困境。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Feb;120(2):443-460. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000281. Epub 2020 Jan 9.
9
Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment.被手推车带偏:为什么牺牲性道德困境对功利主义判断的揭示甚少(或毫无揭示)。
Soc Neurosci. 2015;10(5):551-60. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400. Epub 2015 Mar 20.
10
Trolleys, triage and Covid-19: the role of psychological realism in sacrificial dilemmas.手推车、分诊和新冠病毒:心理现实性在牺牲困境中的作用。
Cogn Emot. 2022 Feb;36(1):137-153. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2021.1964940. Epub 2021 Aug 16.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of negative life events on psychological capital, perceived social support and prosocial behavior in medical students: a moderated mediation model.负性生活事件对医学生心理资本、领悟社会支持及亲社会行为的影响:一个有调节的中介模型
BMC Med Educ. 2025 May 31;25(1):811. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07410-5.

本文引用的文献

1
Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils.违反正态性假设可能是两害相权取其轻。
Behav Res Methods. 2021 Dec;53(6):2576-2590. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5. Epub 2021 May 7.
2
Utilitarianism and the pandemic.功利主义与大流行病
Bioethics. 2020 Jul;34(6):620-632. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12771.
3
The Moral Psychology of Raceless, Genderless Strangers.无种族、无性别的陌生人的道德心理学。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020 Mar;15(2):216-230. doi: 10.1177/1745691619885840. Epub 2020 Feb 3.
4
The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition.直观的更大利益:测试道德认知的纠正双加工模型。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Oct;148(10):1782-1801. doi: 10.1037/xge0000533. Epub 2018 Dec 13.
5
Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers.牺牲功利主义判断确实反映了对更大利益的关注:通过过程分离和哲学家的判断进行澄清。
Cognition. 2018 Oct;179:241-265. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018. Epub 2018 Jul 2.
6
Lecture-based versus problem-based learning in ethics education among nursing students.基于讲座的教学与基于问题的教学在护理学生伦理教育中的比较。
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Sep;26(6):1753-1764. doi: 10.1177/0969733018767246. Epub 2018 May 1.
7
Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contributes to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmas.不仅是恶劣行为:对不良后果的情感关注有助于在道德困境中对伤害进行道德谴责。
Emotion. 2018 Oct;18(7):1009-1023. doi: 10.1037/emo0000413. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
8
Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.超越牺牲性伤害:功利心理学的二维模型。
Psychol Rev. 2018 Mar;125(2):131-164. doi: 10.1037/rev0000093. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
9
Habitual Cognitive Reappraisal Was Negatively Related to Perceived Immorality in the Harm and Fairness Domains.习惯性认知重评与伤害和公平领域中感知到的不道德行为呈负相关。
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 12;8:1805. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01805. eCollection 2017.
10
Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making.道德困境中的后果、规范和普遍不作为:道德决策的 CNI 模型。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017 Sep;113(3):343-376. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000086.