Avoiding Harm

Research scholars have lamented the fact that most of the extant studies on religious responses to the COVID-19 pandemic focus on a particular religious group, typically Christian. This book fills this lacuna by providing some useful insights into how one Muslim religious institution responded to the pandemic. It portrays the sermons, advice, and guidance provided to the Claremont Main Road Mosque (CMRM) congregation in Cape Town, South Africa, by its Imams and elected board of governors during the course of the pandemic. The book carries a concluding chapter by Professor R. Scott Appleby, an expert in the study of lived religion, who critically reflects on this collection of sermons and the response of the mosque by providing some independent ruminations on the themes of religion, science, and the human person.

This book explores young people’s perspectives on risk and harm in youth sexting, specifically privacy violations and unwanted, pressured and coerced sexting. This book engages with key debates, academic literature and evidence, as well as findings of a study into young people’s perceptions of, attitudes toward and experiences of sexting. It challenges predominant assumptions that youth sexting is inherently risky and deviant and sets out the specific contexts in which privacy violations and unwanted sexting occur. It explores the sociocultural contexts underpinning harm, including gender, sexism, sexuality, status and power, and associated constructs of risk and shame, as well as broader youth cultural contexts that create and giving meaning to sexters and sexting practices, particularly related to victim-blaming, social shaming, bullying, harassment and abuse. Finally, it discusses young people’s attitudes and beliefs about interventions to reduce the prevalence of youth sexting. In doing so, the book critically engages with young people’s perspectives in order make practical recommendations for encouraging a ‘digital sexual ethics’ based on rights to bodily and sexual expression, autonomy and integrity, positive bystander intervention, and anti-victim blaming and abuse messages. This book will be of great interest to scholars and students of criminology, education, social care, sociology and health. It will also be a valuable resource for those working in educational and social care settings such as sex educators, youth and social workers, youth counsellors and mental health professionals.

The need to control violent and non-violent harm has been central to human existence since societies first emerged. This book analyses the problem of harm in world politics which stems from the fact that societies require the power to harm in order to defend themselves from internal and external threats, but must also control the capacity to harm so that people cannot kill, injure, humiliate or exploit others as they please. Andrew Linklater analyses writings in moral and legal philosophy that define and classify forms of harm, and discusses the ways in which different theories of international relations suggest the power to harm can be controlled so that societies can co-exist with the minimum of violent and non-violent harm. Linklater argues for new connections between the English School study of international society and Norbert Elias' analysis of civilizing processes in order to advance the study of harm in world politics.

Death is something we mourn or fear as the worst thing that could happen--whether the deaths of close ones, the deaths of strangers in reported accidents or tragedies, or our own. And yet, being dead is something that no one can experience and live to describe. This simple truth raises a host of difficult philosophical questions about the negativity surrounding our sense of death, and how and for whom exactly it is harmful. The question of whether death is bad has occupied philosophers for centuries, and the debate emerging in philosophical literature is referred to as the "badness of death." Are deaths primarily negative for the survivors, or does death also affect the deceased? What are the differences between death in fetal life, just after birth, or in adolescence? In order to properly evaluate deaths in global health, we must find answers to these questions. In this volume, leading philosophers, medical doctors, and economists discuss different views on how to evaluate death and its relevance for health policy. This includes theories about the harm of death and its connections to population-level bioethics. For example, one of the standard views in global health is that newborn deaths are among the worst types of death, yet stillbirths are neglected. This raises difficult questions about why birth is so significant, and several of the book's authors challenge this standard view. This is the first volume to connect philosophical discussions on the harm of death with discussions on population health, adjusting the ways in which death is evaluated. Changing these evaluations has consequences for how we prioritize different health programs that affect individuals at different ages, as well as how we understand inequality in health.

Limiting Harm in Health Care highlights the potential for unnecessary harm in health care practice. This harm is mostly unintentional, but it can result from many different aspects of medical treatment in a wide range of practice areas. Adverse events, events or omissions during clinical care resulting in physical or psychological injury, are increasingly being recognised as significant problems in health care. Following clarification of the nature and extent of medical harm in health care, separate chapters explore the potential for medical harm in diverse areas of practice. Topics include problems in the use of medication, the treatment of acute heart disease, the role of hospital routine and the potentially negative role of medically dominated treatment in mental illness and palliative care. The book includes recommendations for reducing unnecessary harm within the expanding boundaries of nursing practice. The reader is challenged to assess the potential risks inherent in the health care system, to reconsider established methods of treatment, and to re-examine professional working relationships.

Team reflexivity has gained increasing research attention as an effective response to the core challenge of constant learning, innovation, and adaptation in teams due to changing circumstances. Under the right conditions, empirical studies have found that team reflexivity can improve team performance, team learning, team innovation, team creativity, and team member well-being. Thus, research shows that team reflexivity is an effective means to improve teamwork and team outcomes. This book addresses the problem that team reflexivity research is focused too narrowly on improving these empirical team outcomes while neglecting the importance of normative principles and values in good teamwork, such as the do no harm principle. Therefore, this book proposes that the team reflexivity concept needs broader reframing and deeper reflection to realize normative principles and values in teams as a precondition for good teamwork, e.g., do no harm. It further presents two team reflexivity tools and applies them in the cases of burnout prevention and speaking up freely in teams to illustrate the point of this book: Do no harm in teams requires team reflexivity, and vice versa, team reflexivity requires do no harm.

This book argues that the risk of harm in armed conflict should be divided equally between combatants and enemy non-combatants. International law requires that combatants in war take ‘all feasible precautions’ to minimize damage to civilian objects, injury to civilians, and incidental loss of civilian life. However, there is no clear explanation of what ‘feasible precautions’ means in this context, or what would count as sufficiently minimised incidental harm. As a result, it is difficult to judge whether a particular war or offensive actually satisfies this requirement. Just war theorists often consider it common sense that merely not intending to harm innocent civilians is not sufficient, but there is little clarity in the literature regarding what this means. One crucial question that is almost always overlooked is that of what the appropriate baseline distribution of risk should be. This book defends the Minimal Harm Requirement (MHR), which states that combatants should make an effort to reduce merely foreseen harm to enemy non-combatants to the lowest reasonable level. In order to assess which risk impositions are reasonable, and which are not, an egalitarian baseline should be adopted, suggesting that other things being equal risk of harm should be distributed equally between just combatants and unjust non-combatants. This book will be of much interest to students of just war theory, ethics, security studies and international relations.

Doing Harm pries open the black box on a critical chapter in the recent history of psychology: the field’s enmeshment in the so-called war on terror and the ensuing reckoning over do-no-harm ethics during times of threat. Focusing on developments within the American Psychological Association (APA) over two tumultuous decades, Roy Eidelson exposes the challenges that professional organizations face whenever powerful government agencies turn to them for contributions to ethically fraught endeavours. In the months after 9/11 it became clear that the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency were prepared to ignore well-established international law and human rights standards in prosecuting the war on terror. It was less clear, however, that some of Eidelson’s fellow psychologists would become part of the abusive and torturous operations at overseas CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay. Nor was it initially clear that this ruthless enterprise would garner acquiescence and support from the APA’s leadership. Doing Harm examines how and why the APA failed to join human rights groups in efforts to constrain the US government’s unbridled pursuit of security and retribution. It recounts an ongoing struggle – one that has pitted APA leaders set on preserving strong ties to the military-intelligence establishment against dissident voices committed to prioritizing do-no-harm principles.