A variety of cognitive biases are known to compromise ethical deliberation and decision-making processes. However, little is known about their role in clinical ethics supports (CES). We searched five electronic databases (Pubmed, PsychINFO, the Web of Science, CINAHL, and Medline) to identify articles describing cognitive bias in the context of committees that deliberate on ethical issues concerning patients, at all levels of care. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, CES reference, (...) the reported cognitive bias, paper type, and approach. Of an initial 572 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 128 articles, and identified 58 articles for full review. Four articles were selected for inclusion. Two are empirical investigations of bias in two CES, and two are theoretical, conceptual papers that discuss cognitive bias during CES deliberations. Our main result first shows an overview of bias related to the working human environment and to information gathering that concerns different types of CES. Second, several determinants of cognitive bias were highlighted. Especially, stressful environments could be at risk of cognitive bias, whatever the clinical dilemma. Whether a need for a better taxonomy of cognitive bias in CES is highlighted, a proposal is made to focus on individual, group, institutional and professional biases that can be present during clinical ethics deliberation. However, future studies need to focus on an ecological evaluation of CES deliberations, in order to better-characterize cognitive biases and to study how they impact the quality of ethical decision-making. This information would be useful in considering countermeasures to ensure that deliberation is as unbiased as possible, and allow the most appropriate ethical decision to emerge in response to the dilemma at hand. (shrink)

This is a review article of the second Festschrift for Iranist Philippe Gignoux. The contributions, which have generally been inspired by Gignoux’ own writings, are outlined and in many cases supplemented by the reviewer’s comments. Appendi- ces discuss the ritual phrase ēwēn mahr and the title Ohrmazd mowbed.