Ethics, stakeholders and low doses

Smith, Graham; Martínez, Nicole

doi:10.1088/1361-6498/aa9600

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…use of heavy machinery, significant environmental impact, or undue occupational exposure) or the anticipated benefit to public health or well-being (e.g. significance or magnitude of cancer risk reduction; ability to stay in one's home or re-open a business) [64]. It would also be unreasonable to decide on a strategy that is technologically impossible or implementable only on a time scale that would render the strategy moot.…”

Section: Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The three R’s of reasonable in radiological protection: relationships, rationale, and resources

Wieder¹,

Schneider²,

Martínez³

2022

J. Radiol. Prot.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central to applying the principle of optimisation in the system of radiological protection is the evaluation of what level of radiation exposure should be considered “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA), after taking into account the prevailing circumstances. Determining what is “reasonable” is an abstract, although somewhat intuitive, concept with many potential interpretations depending on both the situation and those involved, whether individuals or organisations. There are common themes in the types of considerations that need to be addressed to determine “reasonableness” regardless of the exposure situation. However, despite the consistent and agreeable nature of these themes, there remains a gap in how to apply them in real situations. For example, without measurable goalposts (or a clear process for setting such goalposts) for determining what constitutes ALARA, we can find ourselves misinterpreting the optimisation process as keeping exposures “as low as possible.” We propose herein, by consolidating and building on existing ideas, an easily understandable and actionable “reasonableness” framework. This simple, yet broadly applicable tool is intended to help radiation protection experts in the systematic, deliberative, and collaborative reflection on all of the factors that make up “reasonable” before making a decision—whether it be a proposed medical treatment or clean-up of a contaminated site. Each process execution and decision itself will necessarily retain the complexity of the prevailing circumstance. The proposed “Rs” of Reasonable represent Relationships (stakeholders, empathy, and trust), Rationale (contextual, technical, and ethical), and Resources (technological, financial, and time).

show abstract

Section: Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The three R’s of reasonable in radiological protection: relationships, rationale, and resources

Wieder¹,

Schneider²,

Martínez³

2022

J. Radiol. Prot.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of note is that a variety of authors, among them ICRP members, have identified deontological and/or utilitarian arguments more generally across the system of radiological protection, e.g. [9,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Initial Discussion Of Ethics In the Icrpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of ethical values across the ICRP’s system of radiological protection

Martinez,

Zölzer

2024

J. Radiol. Prot.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2018, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) released Publication 138, which highlights the ethical values foundational to the system of radiological protection. Additional work, both within and beyond the ICRP, has proposed or recommended ethical values associated with applications of the system in different areas, perhaps most notably in medical, veterinary, and environmental radiological protection. There are also existing ethical frameworks not specifically related to radiological protection that are nonetheless relevant to its practice; for example, the Beauchamp and Childress principles of biomedical ethics are of particular significance when it comes to medical uses of radiation and radioactivity. At first glance, it may seem as if there are unique or isolated sets of ethical values that need to be applied depending on the circumstance. Yet while each area of application will indeed have its own unique aspects and associated value judgements, there are consistent and complementary relationships between these ethical values. This paper reviews the work of the ICRP related to ethics, including brief historical context, and highlights the similarities and differences between sets of ethical values with emphasis on medical, veterinary, and environmental applications of radiological protection.

show abstract

“…Experts often struggle with public communication, even though communication is widely recognised as an essential component of risk management (Fjeld et al., 2007; Smith and Martinez, 2017). This struggle is both in conveying technical information as well as in fully understanding and considering public concerns.…”

Section: Inclusivity Empathy and Solidaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2018 Bo Lindell Laureate Lecture: Finding common ground between science, ethics, and experience

Martínez

2020

Ann ICRP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present system of radiological protection has evolved with the advancement of science; evolution of ethical and societal values; and the lessons of our individual, collective, and historical experience. In communicating with each other and members of the public, words are often not enough to completely relay thoughts, ideas, or experiences. Art is a shared experience, beyond the spoken language, where many can find common ground. This paper provides several examples of utilising the visual arts, cinema, and popular culture for communication in different contexts, with discussion of how each relates to the ethical values of the system of radiological protection. In this way, we find inter-relationships between science, ethics, and experience. Experience improves understanding; empathy, or the awareness and feeling of another’s experience, can lead to similar understanding. Drawing on art and the broader human experience will help us improve our communication, promote transparency, and encourage empathy. Through this, we will be more likely to develop trust with stakeholders, which is an essential, yet challenging, aspect of radiological protection.

show abstract

Ethics, stakeholders and low doses

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

The three R’s of reasonable in radiological protection: relationships, rationale, and resources

The three R’s of reasonable in radiological protection: relationships, rationale, and resources

Review of ethical values across the ICRP’s system of radiological protection

The 2018 Bo Lindell Laureate Lecture: Finding common ground between science, ethics, and experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About