1
|
Gustavsson E, Lindblom L. Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2024:jme-2022-108702. [PMID: 36813548 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
How should scarce healthcare resources be distributed? This is a contentious issue that became especially pressing during the pandemic. It is often emphasised that studies exploring public views about this question provide valuable input to the issue of healthcare priority setting. While there has been a vast number of such studies it is rarely articulated, more specifically, what the results from these studies would mean for the justification of principles for priority setting. On the one hand, it seems unreasonable that public values would straightforwardly decide the ethical question of how resources should be distributed. On the other hand, in a democratic society, it seems equally unreasonable that they would be considered irrelevant for this question. In this paper we draw on the notion of reflective equilibrium and discuss the relevance and roles that empirical studies may plausibly have for justification in priority setting ethics. We develop a framework for analysing how different kinds of empirical results may have different kinds of implications for justification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erik Gustavsson
- Division of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
- The National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Lars Lindblom
- Division of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gregg B. Political Bioethics. THE JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY 2022; 47:516-529. [PMID: 35512122 DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhac008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
If bioethical questions cannot be resolved in a widely acceptable manner by rational argument, and if they can be regulated only on the basis of political decision-making, then bioethics belongs to the political sphere. The particular kind of politics practiced in any given society matters greatly: it will determine the kind of bioethical regulation, legislation, and public policy generated there. I propose approaching bioethical questions politically in terms of decisions that cannot be "correct" but that can be "procedurally legitimate." Two procedures in particular can deliver legitimate bioethical decisions, once combined: expert bioethics committees and deliberative democracy. Bioethics so understood can exceed bioethics as a moral project or as a set of administrative principles to regulate medical practice; it can now aspire to a democratic project that involves ordinary citizens as far as reasonably possible. I advance this argument in four steps: (1) using the example of human germline gene editing, (2) I propose a general understanding of proceduralism, and (3) then combine two types and (4) conclude with a defense of majoritarian proceduralism. I develop this argument in terms of one example: germline gene editing.
Collapse
|
3
|
|
4
|
Iltis AS, Rasmussen LM. The "Ethics" Expertise in Clinical Ethics Consultation. THE JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY 2016; 41:363-8. [PMID: 27261069 DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhw013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
The nature, possibility, and implications of ethics expertise (or moral expertise) in general and of bioethics expertise in particular has been the focus of extensive debate for over thirty years. What is ethics expertise and what does it enable experts to do? Knowing what ethics expertise is can help answer another important question: What, if anything, makes a claim of expertise legitimate? In other words, how does someone earn the appellation "ethics expert?" There remains deep disagreement on whether ethics expertise is possible, and if so, what constitutes such expertise and what it entails and legitimates. Discussion of bioethics expertise has become particularly important given the growing presence of bioethicists in the clinical setting as well as efforts to professionalize bioethics through codes of ethics and certification (or quasi-certification) efforts. Unlike in the law or in engineering, where there may be a body of knowledge that professional organizations or others have articulated as important for education and training of experts, ethics expertise admits of no such body of knowledge or required experience. Nor is there an entity seen as having the authority to articulate the necessary scope of knowledge. Questions about whether there is such a body of knowledge for particular areas within bioethics have emerged and played a central role in professionalization efforts in recent years, especially in the area of clinical ethics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana S Iltis
- Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
| | - Lisa M Rasmussen
- Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Emmerich N. What is Bioethics? MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2015; 18:437-441. [PMID: 26324985 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-015-9628-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
|
6
|
Adler D, Zlotnik Shaul R. Disciplining bioethics: towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research. Account Res 2012; 19:187-207. [PMID: 22686634 PMCID: PMC3413904 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2012.692971] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Contemporary bioethics research is often described as multi- or interdisciplinary. Disciplines are characterized, in part, by their methods. Thus, when bioethics research draws on a variety of methods, it crosses disciplinary boundaries. Yet each discipline has its own standard of rigor—so when multiple disciplinary perspectives are considered, what constitutes rigor? This question has received inadequate attention, as there is considerable disagreement regarding the disciplinary status of bioethics. This disagreement has presented five challenges to bioethics research. Addressing them requires consideration of the main types of cross-disciplinary research, and consideration of proposals aiming to ensure rigor in bioethics research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Adler
- Bioethics Department, The Hospital for Sick Children, and Department of Pediatrics, Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Coggon J, Miola J. AUTONOMY, LIBERTY, AND MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING. THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL 2011; 70:523-547. [PMID: 23293377 PMCID: PMC3535760 DOI: 10.1017/s0008197311000845] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
A central tenet to much ethical argument within medical law is patient autonomy.1 Although we have seen a welcome move away from a system governed by largely unchecked paternalism, there is not universal agreement on the direction in which medical law should advance.2 Competing concerns for greater welfare and individual freedom, complicated by an overarching commitment to value-pluralism, make this a tricky area of policy-development.3 Furthermore, there are distinct understandings of, and justifications for, different conceptions of autonomy.4 In this paper, we argue that in response to these issues, there has been a failure by the courts properly to distinguish political concepts of liberty and moral concepts of autonomy.
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
Many commentators today lament the politicization of bioethics, but some suggest distinguishing among different kinds of politicization. This essay pursues that idea with reference to three traditions of political thought: liberalism, communitarianism, and republicanism. After briefly discussing the concept of politicization itself, the essay examines how each of these political traditions manifests itself in recent bioethics scholarship, focusing on the implications of each tradition for the design of government bioethics councils. The liberal emphasis on the irreducible plurality of values and interests in modern societies, and the communitarian concern with the social dimensions of biotechnology, offer important insights for bioethics councils. The essay finds the most promise in the republican tradition, however, which emphasizes institutional mechanisms that allow bioethics councils to enrich but not dominate public deliberation, while ensuring that government decisions on bioethical issues are publicly accountable and contestable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark B Brown
- Department of Government, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6089, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
|
10
|
Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing? Health Policy 2009; 89:58-71. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2007] [Revised: 04/04/2008] [Accepted: 04/16/2008] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
11
|
Varelius J. Is ethical expertise possible? MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2008; 11:127-32. [PMID: 17712608 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-007-9089-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2007] [Accepted: 07/06/2007] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
Services of ethics committees are nowadays commonly used in such various spheres of life as health care, public administration, business, law, engineering, and scientific research. It is taken that as their members have expertise in ethics, these committees can have valuable contributions to make in solving practical moral problems. It has, however, also been maintained that it is simply absurd to claim that one has some special knowledge and skills in moral matters; in connection with moral questions there is no expertise to be had. In this paper, I assess this criticism of the use of ethics committees and ethics consultants. I argue that there is no sufficient reason to reject the possibility of ethical expertise.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jukka Varelius
- Department of Philosophy, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Steinberg D. How Much Risk Can Medicine Allow a Willing Altruist? THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ETHICS 2007. [DOI: 10.1086/jce200718102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
14
|
Steinberg D. Reply to Valapour, “Living Donor Transplantation: The Perfect Balance of Public Oversight and Medical Responsibility”. THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ETHICS 2007. [DOI: 10.1086/jce200718104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|