Tyler Paetkau, in his paper ‘Ladders and Stairs: how the intervention ladder focuses blame on individuals and obscures systemic failings and interventions’, adds to the growing body of academic literature raising questions about the appropriateness and usefulness of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB)’s intervention ladder (2007) as a tool for policymakers.1 2 Paetkau is critical of the intervention ladder because he holds that it focuses on individual choice and personal responsibility and pays insufficient attention to ‘systemic interventions’. He suggests (...) substituting the new metaphor of an ‘intervention stairway’ for that of the intervention ladder. I argue that his diagnosis of the problems does not go far enough and that his suggested alternative metaphor is more confusing than helpful. Paetkau’s critical analysis of the intervention ladder makes some good points. It is true that this metaphor assumes a narrow range of policy options, with a focus on changing individual behaviour, and a consequent emphasis on personal responsibility. This is the flip-side of the NCB’s focus on liberty as always being a positive value and restriction seen as intrinsically wrong. Paetkau points out that this means that much routine public health action directed at changing the more structural features that impact on health is missing from the story. I set this …. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This essay is an attempt to examine the idea that a professional code of practice can entail ethical conduct. It is focused around two differing perspectives on ethics. It will be argued that the professions have, perhaps too hastily, adopted one theory without considering the merits, or the objections offered by the alternative account. This alternative, a ‘cognitivist’ theory, is sketched, and the possible advantages of such an approach are discussed. Such a perspective means adopting a radically different approach (...) to the nature of ethics and what it is to be a moral agent, and could have interesting consequences for professional practice. Even if a cognitivist account is ultimately unconvincing, it does provide a number of worrying arguments for those professionals who believe that ethical conduct is generated by following a code of practice, and these arguments need to be addressed. (shrink)

This paper argues that qualitative research is both useful and necessary, as it provides an essential means of gaining a richer understanding of patients' perceptions, social processes and meanings. In their paper in this edition of Clinical Ethics, Hallowell and Lawton raise many issues relating to the way that qualitative research is treated by RECs in the UK. In this paper I discuss just three key topics stimulated by their paper: the way that methodology relates to ethics, the experience and (...) character of the researcher, and the normative/descriptive distinction. I strongly support Hallowell and Lawton's appeal for greater communication between qualitative researchers and RECs. In other respects, I would argue that they do not go far enough. The recent review of research ethics structures and the review process provides an opportunity to move away from the present 'one size fits all' approach to ethical review. I would argue that this change could only benefit qualitative research and researchers. (shrink)