Meeting Goodpaster's challenge: a Smithian approach to Goodpaster's paradox

Goodpaster identifies a paradox in corporate decision-making where it appears unethical to raise the status of non-owner-stakeholders to that of shareholders, whereas it is also unethical not to. In addressing his own paradox, he suggests that allowing managers to make ethical decisions within the ambit of the consciences of the shareholders, the shareholders' position is maintained but the interests of non-owner- stakeholders are considered inequitably in the generation of a strategic direction. It is suggested that there is a weakness in his case. We argue that Adam Smith's impartial spectator provides a potentially more complete solution to Goodpaster's problem in that, being sympathetic to the feelings of others, all stakeholders share the burden of seeking to achieve an ethically desirable outcom

Gaining ethical approval for research into sensitive topics: 'Two strikes and you're out?'

Researching sensitive topics, such as the treatment of men with intellectual disabilities and sexually abusive behaviour, present a number of ethical issues for researchers. This paper describes our experiences in working with Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees on a research proposal designed to assess the efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapy for men with intellectual disabilities who are at risk of sexual offending. After submitting to three Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees and spending a year trying to get ethical approval, we questioned whether: • ? the issue of study design should be part of the Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees remit; • ? Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees were sufficiently responsive to concerns raised by researchers; • ? Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees always understood the research; and • ? the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees should disallow re-submission after rejection by two Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees (‘two strikes and you’re out')