•  We do not practice medicine, law or any profession.We assist in the process of gathering data, creating your own journals and you being responsible to find the experts to assist you. Many issues an be confusing because of stress and emotional pain.  • We assist you in recognition of who, how, why and what so you can take the needed action you desire.  • You have to do your own personal work and select the professionals and experts to help you as needed in life.
Ethical Profiles - Ethical Centers - Ethical Studies

Profiles of Experts in Ethics

We interview on air ethics specialists who are not given radio and television time in our media. We seek out experts in fields that are not part of routine programing .
In this way our programing is unique. We also list all the major centers on ethics here for your use.  

There is no practice of medicine or any profession on this site ,our media or press. Its all about the data.
Profile for Dr. Anthony Scioli
Co-Author of:  Hope in the Age of Anxiety The Definitive Guide to Hope
An inspiring guide that combines the latest scientific research with the wisdom of the ages to carry us through troubled times.

Economic collapse, poverty, disease, natural disasters, the constant threat of community unrest and international terrorism--a quick look at any newspaper is enough to cause almost anyone to feel trapped and desperate.  Yet the recent election also revealed a growing search for hope spreading through society. In the timely Hope in the Age of Anxiety,
Anthony Scioli and Henry Biller illuminate the nature of hope and offer a multitude of techniques designed to improve the lives of individuals, and bring more light into the world.

In this fascinating and humane book,
Scioli and Biller reveal the ways in which human beings acquire and make use of hope.  Hope in the Age of Anxiety is meant to be a definitive guide.  The evolutionary, biological, and cultural roots of hope are covered along with the seven kinds of hope found in the world’s  religions. Just as vital, the book provides many personal tools for addressing the major challenges of the human condition: fear, loss, illness, and death. Some of the key areas illuminated in Hope in the Age of Anxiety:

·         How do you build and sustain hope in trying times?

·         How can hope help you to achieve your life goals?

·         How can hope improve your relationships with others?

·         How can hope aid your recovery from trauma or illness?

·         How does hope relate to spirituality?

Hope in the Age of Anxiety identifies the skills needed to cultivate hope, and offers suggestions for using these capacities to realize your life goals, support health and healing, strengthen relationships, enhance spirituality, and inoculate yourself against the despair that engulfs many individuals.

About the Authors

Anthony Scioli
is a leading authority on the topic of hope.  He is professor of Clinical Psychology at Keene State College and a member of the graduate faculty at the University of Rhode Island. He was a Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude graduate of the University of Massachusetts – Amherst, and received his Ph. D. from the University of Rhode Island in 1990. Dr. Scioli completed Harvard fellowships in human motivation and behavioral medicine, and is listed in Who’s Who in America.  He co-authored the chapter on emotion for the Encyclopedia of Mental Health and currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Positive Psychology and the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.

Henry B. Biller
is professor and co-director of externship training in Clinical Psychology at The University of Rhode Island. He was a Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude graduate of Brown University and received his Ph.D. from Duke University in 1967.  A fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science, he is also listed in Who’s Who in America.   Dr. Biller has authored or co-authored ten previous books, including Fathers and Families, and Creative Fitness: applying health psychology and exercise science to everyday life.
Profile for John D. Banja, PhD

John D. Banja
is an Associate Professor of Clinical Ethics and the Assistant Director of the Program in Health Sciences and Ethics at Emory University.  He is also an Associate Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine.  Dr. Banja received a doctorate degree in philosophy from Fordham University in New York and has taught and lectured on topics in medical ethics throughout the United States. 

He has authored or coauthored over 150 publications and has delivered over 700 invited presentations at regional, national, and international conferences.  He spent the 1998-99 academic year as a Mary Switzer Distinguished Fellow with grant support from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and was the year 2000 recipient of the John W. Goldschmidt Award for Excellence in Rehabilitation, presented by the National Rehabilitation Hospital in Washington, DC.  He currently serves on the Commission For Case Manager Certification. 

His scholarly interests include the ethical dimensions of private health insurance, the psychodynamics of patient-provider relationships, and the phenomenon of harm-causing medical error.  He recently finished a three-year research project, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, on developing model error disclosure practices in healthcare organizations.  In July 2005, he began another project awarded by the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality that seeks to assess and improve the discharge process of hospitalized patients.  His book, Medical Errors and Medical Narcissism, was published by Jones and Bartlett Publishers in February of 2005.   

Contact Email: 
John D. Banja, PhD
Center For Ethics
1462 Clifton Road, Suite 302
Atlanta, GA 30322
phone:  404-712-4804;  fax:  404-727-7399 
email address  jbanja@emory.edu
Or go to Science and Society, Emory University

AHRQ Interview with Professor John Banja

In February 2006, Emory University Professor and Sorry Works! board member John Banja, PhD, gave an interview with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). We thought our readers would enjoy reading the interview.

Dr. Robert Wachter
, Editor, AHRQ WebM&M: Tell us what you mean by medical narcissism.

Dr. John Banja
: I see two kinds of narcissists in medicine. The first is a representative of what is an increasingly bygone era. This is the "advanced" narcissist: an arrogant, imperious, prima donna physician around whom the world turns. We can all recognize this person, and while I am told they are still around, I rarely meet one.

The second kind is much more common. This is the very bright, compulsive, hard-working individual who lives in a very stressful world, who carries entirely too much stuff around in his or her head, who - and this is a great tragedy - is immensely self- preoccupied or internally focused with all that needs to be done, whose baseline emotional state is one of mild to moderate anxiety, and who has forgotten to be empathic. That lack of empathy is his or her outstanding trait. It is not that this person wants to seem distant or uncaring, or rude or arrogant. Rather, his or her adaptation to the environment has resulted in a set of coping behaviors that seems to exclude patients and their families. This is a person who has forgotten how to listen, who is used to dominating conversations, who interrupts constantly, who uses technical language that patients cannot begin to understand, and who always seems to be in a hurry to be somewhere else. This physician has forgotten how to monitor his or her relational skills.

This person's narcissism consists in his intense experience of himself. He "feels" himself and his world intensely, so that when an error comes along, two things happen: first, the natural self- protectiveness that any of us feel when we've screwed up is particularly aroused in this person (so that he might search for a way to rationalize or excuse the error to avoid its disclosure), and second, if he does discuss what happened to the harmed party, his poorly developed relational skills may trigger an empathic disaster.

RW: Do you think medical narcissists are largely born or bred? Does the profession attract or make them?

JB: The literature on narcissism suggests that it's probably a product of nurturing more than anything else. This nurturing could occur early in childhood or it could occur in medical school or, most probably, in residency. Robert Millman has discussed a phenomenon he calls "acquired situational narcissism," illustrated by professional athletes and movie stars, whom he has counseled over the years. These folks often are born into socio-economically disadvantaged situations, but in their early 20s, for example, they find themselves millionaires and the center of attention. And they begin to develop pompous, condescending, very self-preoccupied types of behaviors. He believes that it's a function of the situation that they are in. I often think that the physician lives in a peculiar, if not downright unhealthy, emotional environment. First, it's a very stressful world. Second, doctors are often surrounded by people who are overly polite or overly respectful, if not simply genuflective. They're also exposed to individuals who are challenging, irritating, annoying, or difficult - patients projecting their misery and anxiety on them and asking all kinds of challenging questions. Medical narcissism develops as either a poorly regulated response to the adulation (for all the marvelous things health providers know they do) or as an overly defensive response to the countless threats to the professional's self-esteem that occur every day.

RW: Is the main issue in medical narcissism as it pertains to patient safety the inability to recognize or acknowledge an error when it occurs, or is it the inability, once an error is recognized, to confront it and perhaps apologize for it, in the most mature and appropriate way?

JB: The answer depends largely on where on the pathological continuum of narcissism you are. The more pathological in terms of the narcissism, the easier it is for you to say "I couldn't possibly have done that. Someone else is to blame." As I started learning about errors, how they happen, and how complex and multi-factorial they often are, one thing that surprised me was how there is a nugget in virtually every scenario that could be used to spin the story away from the error. You could use this nugget to say, "I don't know that this really was an error," or "I don't really know for sure that this error caused the harm." Or, "I don't know that the harm was all that horrible or all that bad." Or, "I don't know that this was really my fault." Or, "This was somebody else's fault." That opportunity for rationalization is always there, and for the advanced narcissist, he or she almost reflexively takes advantage of it. For most health care providers - in other words, those who are not advanced narcissists - it's more the fear of the malpractice suit, the fear of censure from their colleagues or licensing boards, or the discomfort of embarrassment and humiliation that influences their concealment of error. Research has shown that the feelings of embarrassment and humiliation are often significant barriers to health care professionals acknowledging their errors and discussing them with their patients.

RW: Let's assume that you committed a terrible error and the patient died. I am the patient's family member. Can you disclose and apologize to me in the way that you think it should be done?

JB: Okay, I would say, "Mrs. Jones, this is very difficult for me to tell you and it will probably be even more difficult for you to hear. But an error occurred when your Mom was here at the hospital last week." And I would stop at that point, and wait for her response. If she looked at me in shock and said, "An error?" I would say, "Yes, there was an error in the course of her care. Would you like me to tell you about what happened?" And let's assume she said yes. I would say to her something like, "Mrs. Jones, what happened was your mother was supposed to receive 10 units of insulin, and there was an error - she actually got 100 units of insulin. And we believe this medication error caused the problems that she had. It caused her heart to stop. It caused our having to take her down to the ICU where, as you know, we were not successful in resuscitating her. I am sorry beyond words, Mrs. Jones, but it would have been wrong to keep this a secret from you. This must be a terrible shock." I would speak slowly and pause between sentences such that if Mrs. Jones wanted to interrupt me she could. But I would tell her virtually everything, because if I don't and she goes to an attorney, that plaintiff's attorney is going to find out everything anyway. So my philosophy is, you either tell them now or tell them later.

RW: In your role as an ethicist, is there a tension between doing it because it's the right thing to do or doing it because you believe that it's the pragmatic thing to do in terms of diffusing the malpractice concern?

JB: Error disclosure is obviously the ethical thing to do. However, I don't stress that very much when I talk to health care professionals because, quite frankly, I don't think that their ethical relationship to a patient is the first thing that enters their mind after a medical error. I think what they think about after an error is, number one, "How can I reverse the harm to the patient?" and, number two, "What's going to happen to me as a result of this?"

When I got into this research back in 2001, I was going around the country talking about truthful disclosure, especially to lawyer or risk management groups; many people looked at me as though I was absolutely mad. I'll never forget, I once purposely sat next to a certain audience member at lunch, because he gave me the dirtiest looks during my talk earlier that morning. At lunch, I said to this person, who I thought was a physician, "I have a hunch I didn't convince you." And he looked at me and he said, "I'm the head of legal counsel here at this hospital, and everything you said this morning was diametrically opposed to everything that I know and have learned about how to handle these kinds of cases." Truthful and comprehensive error disclosure is a paradigm change for health care professionals and legal counsel. But it seems like the medical malpractice groups are buying into this idea that a generous, empathic, compassionate, truthful, ethical disclosure of error may very well contain or limit lawsuits. And systems like the VA and the University of Michigan are reporting significant decreases in their claims frequency and severity after adopting full disclosure policies.

RW: One point you made nicely in your book is that, although institutions obsess over how to handle the errors and whether to have a "blame-free environment," only the patient can absolve the provider of blame. Given that, what is the role of the institution in working with their providers to manage this process of disclosure?

JB: There's a two-pronged answer. Number one, as a provider, in disclosing the error truthfully and ethically to the patient, you have discharged your responsibility to that individual because you have apologized, you have informed the patient, and now the next steps are in the patient's or family's lap. From the standpoint of the organization, though, you must look at this erring nurse, pharmacist, physician, or whomever, and ask, was this individual's act blameworthy and punishable, or not? JCAHO and safety experts talk about creating blameless and non-punitive environments, and that's good. We want individuals to feel that they can report their errors so risk management can look into the organizationÂ’s latent system failures that may have caused them. However, James Reason and others have made the point that a totally blameless, non-punitive environment is irresponsible, if not impossible. Some errors will be so egregious and terrible that it would be ethically irresponsible for the institution not to punish the individual.

The challenge for institutions is to look at the conduct of the individual and decide whether or not this is a blamable or a non- blamable act. And where I and some other people have come down in drawing the line that discriminates blamable from non-blamable is, did the individual violate policy and procedure? Because if he or she knowingly, willfully, or recklessly violated policy and procedure, that would seem to me to differentiate punishable errors from the non-punishable ones. Importantly, I do not think that we should look at the outcome of the error in terms of deciding whether to blame or not to blame.

RW: The line of reasoning that disclosure is not only the right thing ethically, but may very well be helpful pragmatically in lessening malpractice risk, presupposes that the patient or family member and the plaintiff's attorney ultimately would have found out about it. But as we know from the Harvard Medical Practice Studies, a lot of errors never reach the light of day. For many institutions and providers, some errors probably would not have come to light except for the disclosure. How do you balance that issue, or, at the end of the day, is this really mostly about doing the right thing?

JB: There's no question that, if your institution adopts a policy of comprehensive error disclosure, you're inviting people to sue you. Consequently, I hope we'll have good research that will show us that even though you might get sued a lot, your claim severity - the cost of all the litigation and payouts - will be much more manageable. Also, if you start making these kinds of discriminations in your mind - "They'll never find out about this particular error, but they might find out about this one, so we can conceal the former but weÂ’ll have to disclose the latter" - I think you're going down a slippery slope real fast, headed toward nothing but trouble.

RW: There is a tremendous tension between physicians feeling like there's a certain level of empathy that they'd like to express to patients after an error, and some risk managers, who have traditionally said, you're just opening up huge cans of worms that will take us decades to close. Each one, of course, is right from his or her narrow perspective.

JB: Much of this issue has to do with the way the story reflects the moral character of the storyteller. If you give the patient a lawyer- crafted story that doesn't acknowledge that there was an error, that doesn't say there was harm, or doesn't say there was a mistake, but instead you're dancing around the periphery saying, "We had this problem, and we're sorry that it happened," then you’re taking a big risk. The patient will walk out of there wondering, "What did he say to me, was there really an error, was there really a mistake?" The more my suspicions are aroused, the more negative I'm going to be toward you because your story is a reflection of you. Patients and their family members absolutely will not tolerate thinking that their physician is being deceptive or is withholding the truth. The very idea is infuriating, so it shouldn't be a mystery why they go to a lawyer.

Profile for Dr. James J. Walter 

James J. Walter, Ph.D.
Austin & Ann O'Malley Professor of Bioethics
Chair, The Bioethics Institute

General Information:

Office:  University Hall #4515
Telephone:  (310) 258-8621
Fax:  (310) 258-8642

Address: Loyola Marymount University
The Bioethics Institute
University Hall, Suite 4515
One LMU Drive
Los Angeles, CA  90045-2659

E-mail: jwalter@lmu.edu

Listen to our live one-hour telephone interview with
Dr. Walter on our Ethical Doctor Program from July 10, 2008

Featured Ethics Centers:

McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law
Director: M.A. Somerville
3690 Peel Street, Room 201
Montreal, Quebec H3A 1W9

Tel.: 514-398-7400
Fax: 514-398-4668

The McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law undertakes a broad range

of transdisciplinary activities in the field of applied ethics. Its
work comprises three interrelated functions: research; teaching and
teaching development; and involvement in the community. Areas in which
it has worked or is working with other academics, students,
governmental, non-governmental and international agencies include: the
ethical, legal, social and economic impact of HIV/AIDS; genetics,
reproductive technologies, ethics and law; genomics, ethics, law and
environment; climate change, health, ethics and law; mind, brain,
society and ethics; health care, human rights and ethics in zones of
armed conflict; and bioethics for a small planet.

All of the following colleges have a full department of Ethics with the exception of certain web resources listed that focus on ethics.

Arizona State University


Baylor College of Medicine


Brandeis University


Case Western Reserve University


Clark University


Duke University


Emory University


ETHICA Resources


Ethics Center


Ethics in Science


George Mason University


Harvard University


Illinois Institute of Technology


International Center for Infro Ethics


Loyola University


Lund University


Metropolitan State University


Michigan State University



Excellent resource web

Santa Clara University


Southwestern University


Stanford University


Tohoku University


University of Birmingham


University of Buffalo




University of Chicago


University of Montana


The University of Washington


Utah Valley State College

Site has listing of ethic centers Resource

World Health Organization


Click Here To Fill Out Form
Web Hosting