Sociomoral Reflection Measure-–Short Form

Addiction Research Ethics and the Belmont Principles: Do Drug Users Have a Different Moral Voice?

“…Rule justifications are more specific in content and restrictive in scope than other moral principles (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009). Responses in this category most closely resembled Kohlberg’s description of conventional moral reasoning in the application of rules whose moral authority is not to be questioned (Gibbs et al, 1992; Kohlberg, 1981). While most responses did not go beyond following rules as a moral good in and of itself, others expressed the importance of rules in sustaining a functioning society or profession.…”

“…Beauchamp and Childress (2009) suggest that conflicts between moral requirements and self-interest should be interpreted as practical rather than moral approaches to such dilemmas. Such reasoning is most closely tied to the Stage 1 level of sociomoral reasoning described by Kohlberg (1981) and Gibbs et al (1992). Case 1 elicited the most frequent use of statements in this category focusing exclusively on the negative consequences to Dr. Jones if she agreed to hide the drugs for Terry, including the risk of getting “caught,” “arrested,” going to “jail,” or “losing her ‘career and freedom.”‘ In contrast, this theme appeared much less frequently in response to Cases 2 and 3.…”

“…Sociocognitive theorists consider such responses as “immature,” with greater maturity marked by a progression through empathic concern and social perspective-taking, an understanding of trust and mutuality, to appreciation of interdependencies underlying society (Gibbs et al, 1992; Kohlberg, 1981). …”

“…In this first iteration, coding emphasis was descriptive and thematic rather than conceptual. As described in detail in the Results section, additional iterations yielded a coding frame that in many respects mapped on to the Belmont principles, principles of trust and fiduciary obligations inherent in professional association ethics codes, and sociomoral stage theory (Gibbs, Bassinger, & Fuller, 1992; Kohlberg, 1981). Once the coding guide was finalized, a trained independent scorer coded 50% (n =135) of the responses randomly selected and equally distributed across the three cases.…”

A preliminary investigation into the moral reasoning abilities of UK veterinarians

“…Although the majority of veterinarians relied on postconventional moral reasoning, what is concerning is that veterinarians either rely on postconventional moral reasoning or revert to simplistic levels of reasoning (types 1, 2 and 3), with very small proportions reliant on types 4 and 5. Preconventional moral reasoning is normally rejected at around age 10 (Kohlberg 1968), and to function in a diverse society, type 3 reasoning is also considered too simplistic (Gibbs and others 1992, p.5). So, though the majority of veterinary graduates appear to benefit from their veterinary education, something within that education or in the nature of veterinary practice causes some practitioners to revert to this simplistic form of moral reasoning.…”