Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Gift Giving”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Selling yourself: Titmuss's argument against a market in blood.

This article defends Richard Titmuss's argument, and Peter Singer's sympathetic support for it, against orthodox philosophical criticism. The article specifies the sense in which a market in blood is "dehumanising" as having to do with a loss of "imagined community" or social "integration," and not with a loss of valued or "deeper" liberty. It separates two "domino arguments"--the "contamination of meaning" argument and the "erosion of motivation" argument--which support, in different but interrelated ways, the claim that a market in blood is "imperialistic." Concentrating on the first domino argument the article considers the view that monetary and non-monetary meanings of the same good can co-exist given the robustness of certain kinds of relationship and joint undertakings within which gifts can figure. It argues that societal relationships are vulnerable or permeable to the effects of the market in a way that those constitutive of the personal sphere are not. General, more broadly political questions remain unanswered but the core of Titmuss's original and challenging argument remains and can be presented in a defensible form.

Altruism↗
PubMed2005

Stewardship and accountability.

In March 2003 The Chronicle for Philanthropy reported a sea change in fund development. After 25 years of consistent research on donor motivation, a study came out with new information. Donors ranked on a scale of 1-10 what mattered most to them when considering giving. Until now, most donors reported that a belief in the mission of the organization and the desire to have an impact on the people served was their number one motivation. Certainly gratitude for life-saving or life-changing service made that belief in mission and impact that much more powerful as a motivation. Improving their community was consistently the number two reason for giving. But, according to the 2003 survey, something changed. Six of the 10 reasons involve stewardship and accountability.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1993

Altruism, motivation, and allocation: giving and using human organs.

With tens of thousands of waiting recipients but only 4000-5000 organs available annually, there is a chronic and largely insatiable demand for organ transplants. This article draws on three sources of data regarding the sources of organs donated: a survey of the families of organ donors, a survey of the general public, and a prospective data collection effort from organ procurement agencies. It considers which Americans are willing to engage in this kind of altruism. Furthermore, it discusses the obligations imposed on the nation's public organ procurement and allocation system by the fact that organs are obtained as gifts. It argues that, as all Americans may be asked to donate and there would be social costs to excluding some from a moral community to givers and recipients, all Americans ought to have equal access to organ transplantation.

Black or African American↗
PubMed1999

The norm of self-interest.

The self-interest motive is singularly powerful according to many of the most influential theories of human behavior and the layperson alike. In the present article the author examines the role the assumption of self-interest plays in its own confirmation. It is proposed that a norm exists in Western cultures that specifies self-interest both is and ought to be a powerful determinant of behavior. This norm influences people's actions and opinions as well as the accounts they give for their actions and opinions. In particular, it leads people to act and speak as though they care more about their material self-interest than they do. Consequences of misinterpreting the "fact" of self-interest are discussed.

Culture↗
PubMed1996

A case for permitting altruistic surrogacy.

Canada's Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies rejects all forms of surrogacy arrangement under the rubric of objecting to commercial surrogacy. Noncommercial surrogacy arrangements, however, can be defended against the commission's objections. They can be viewed as cases of giving a benefit or service to another in a way that expresses benevolence, and establishes a relationship between surrogates and prospective 'social' parents that allows mutual understanding and reciprocal personal interaction between them.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2005

Moves Management for physician fundraising in a capital campaign.

Hospitals are turning to philanthropy as a significant source of funding for capital programs, and physicians are a key resource. Through their own giving and their community-wide influence, physicians provide a high return on capital campaign investment. By adapting Moves Management, the premier method for prospecting and cultivation, development officers can achieve a high rate of participation by the hospital's physicians and, through them, attain increased community giving. Moves Management is defined as a process that involves managing a series of steps (moves) with identified prospects (the 10 percent who can give 90 percent). The number and type of steps depend upon the individual involved, such that each prospect is moved from attention to interest to desire to action and then back to interest until he or she has given everything he/she will or can to the organization.

Community-Institutional Relations↗
PubMed2002

Physician-industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians.

This is part 1 of a 2-part paper on ethics and physician-industry relationships. Part 1 offers advice to individual physicians; part 2 gives recommendations to medical education providers and medical professional societies. Physicians and industry have a shared interest in advancing medical knowledge. Nonetheless, the primary ethic of the physician is to promote the patient's best interests, while the primary ethic of industry is to promote profitability. Although partnerships between physicians and industry can result in impressive medical advances, they also create opportunities for bias and can result in unfavorable public perceptions. Many physicians and physicians-in-training think they are impervious to commercial influence. However, recent studies show that accepting industry hospitality and gifts, even drug samples, can compromise judgment about medical information and subsequent decisions about patient care. It is up to the physician to judge whether a gift is acceptable. A very general guideline is that it is ethical to accept modest gifts that advance medical practice. It is clearly unethical to accept gifts or services that obligate the physician to reciprocate. Conflicts of interest can arise from other financial ties between physicians and industry, whether to outside companies or self-owned businesses. Such ties include honorariums for speaking or writing about a company's product, payment for participating in clinic-based research, and referrals to medical resources. All of these relationships have the potential to influence a physician's attitudes and practices. This paper explores the ethical quandaries involved and offers guidelines for ethical business relationships.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1996

Pharmaceutical sales representatives and physicians: ethical considerations of a relationship.

Since their appearance in 1850, Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (PSR) interactions with physicians have engendered intense emotional responses. The controversy has continued unabated since that time. Arguments in favor of the moral impermissibility of the PSR-physician relationship can be divided into four general categories; (1) influence, (2) patients pay but they do not choose, (3) violation of principlism, and (4) the erosion of the patient-physician relationship. None of the arguments that have thus far been proposed against the moral permissibility of these interactions gives sufficient warrant to avoid them (or pursue them). It may be the case that PSR-physician interactions place the patient-physician relationship in jeopardy. This would constitute enough warrant, from a pragmatic perspective, to shun such relationships. However, no research supports this contention. A careful evaluation of the literature leaves one ambivalent at best.

Advertising↗