Checking ethical blind spots: Being aware of potential harm

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Malahy ◽  
Benoit Monin
Keyword(s):  
Potential Harm ◽  
Blind Spots

Dementia and driving: What are the psychologist's ethical blind spots?

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Love ◽  
Robert Welsh ◽  
Sheryn Scott ◽  
David Brokaw
Keyword(s):  
Blind Spots

Advanced Systems to Prevent Collisions of Mining Equipment and Personnel Accidents in Surface Mining

2020 ◽  
pp. 24-29
Author(s):  
A.F. Klebanov ◽  
M.V. Kadochnikov ◽  
V.V. Ulitin ◽  
D.N. Sizemov
Keyword(s):  
Human Life ◽  
Surface Mining ◽  
Production Cycle ◽  
Mining Equipment ◽  
Mining Operations ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Surface Mines ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
Personal Devices ◽  
Blind Spots

The article addresses the issues of ensuring safe operation of mining equipment in surface mining. It describes the main factors and situations that pose a high risk to human life and health. The most dangerous incidents are shown to be related to limited visibility and blind spots for operators of mining equipment, which can result in collisions and personnel run over. The main technologies and specific solutions used to design collision avoidance systems are described and their general comparison is provided. A particular focus is placed on monitoring the health of employees at their workplace by means of portable personal devices that promptly inform the dispatcher of emergency situations. General technical requirements are formulated for designing of the system to prevent equipment collisions and personnel run over in surface mining operations. The paper emphasizes the importance of introducing a multifunctional safety system in surface mines in order to minimise the possibility of incidents and accidents throughout the entire production cycle.

Assimilation, Blind Spots and Coproduced Crises

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Carter
Keyword(s):  
Blind Spots

A Religious Right to Discriminate

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis Gasper
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Health Insurance Coverage ◽  
Religious Right ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Hobby Lobby

The Supreme Court in its 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby broadly expanded so-called religious freedom protections in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) by striking down a provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for certain methods of contraception. In doing so, the Court opened the floodgates for employers to claim an exemption based upon any “sincerely held” religious belief. Without inquiry into the sincerity of that belief, businesses and corporations are free to adopt or assert beliefs that could lead to increased discrimination against employees. This is especially troublesome for marginalized groups like the LGBT community, which is already on the receiving end of discrimination under the pretext of religious exemptions. To correct any future misuse of these exemptions, Congress should amend RFRA to permit courts to assess the belief being asserted and contrast it with the potential harm if an exemption is allowed. The purpose of RFRA is to ease the burden faced by people of faith forced to go against their religious beliefs if they obey a certain statute. Easing this burden should focus on heady moral dilemmas, not mere inconveniences. Amending RFRA can ensure it maintains its initial purpose of protecting religious freedom, while not being used as a tool to perpetuate discrimination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document