Suchergebnisse

In ihrem Beitrag gibt Alena Buyx einen Überblick über einige Themen der Ethik in der Pandemie. Sie skizziert dabei auch die Arbeit des Deutschen Ethikrats und erklärt die Entstehung seiner Veröffentlichungen zu ethischen Fragen während der Pandemie. Im Mittelpunkt der Ausführungen stehen drei Themen des ethischen Nachdenkens in der Krise: Die Frage von Lockdown und Lockerungen, der Aspekt der Triage sowie die Frage der Impfpriorisierung. ; In her paper, Alena Buyx provides an overview of some of the issues of ethics in the pandemic. She also outlines the work of the German Ethics Council and explains the genesis of its publications on ethical issues during the pandemic. The presentation focuses on three issues of ethical reflection during the crisis: the question of lockdown and relaxations, the aspect of triage, and the question of vaccination prioritization.

This article provides a concise overview of the history of scholarship on solidarity in Europe and North America. While recent decades have seen an increase in conceptual and scholarly interest in solidarity in North America and other parts of the Anglo-Saxon world, the concept is much more strongly anchored in Europe. Continental European politics in particular have given rise to two of the most influential traditions of solidarity, namely, socialism and Christian ethics. Solidarity has also guided important public instruments and institutions in Europe (e.g., welfare, healthcare, etc.). Despite the much stronger affinity of continental European societies to solidaristic thinking, we argue that solidarity has much to offer for addressing societal challenges on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond. After proposing a working definition of solidarity that highlights its utility for guiding policy and practice, we give an example of how a solidarity-based perspective can shape instruments for the governance of data use.

Der Begriff »Solidarität« erlebt gegenwärtig eine Renaissance: In Zeiten ökonomischer Krisen scheint eine Rückbesinnung auf solidarische Werte auch in der Gesundheitsversorgung angebracht. Anknüpfend an die internationale Bio- und Medizinethikdebatte entwickeln die Autorinnen ein neues Solidaritätsverständnis: Anstatt den Begriff nur auf der abstrakten Ebene zu behandeln, zeigen sie anhand konkreter Fallbeispiele, etwa der Schweinegrippe-Pandemie von 2009/10 oder lebensstilbedingten Krankheiten, wie ethische Regelwerke und regulatorische Instrumente aus dem Blickwinkel der Solidarität verändert und verbessert werden können. Barbara Prainsack ist Professorin am Department of Social Science, Health Medicine am Londoner King's College und Mitglied der Österreichischen Bioethikkommission. Alena Buyx ist Professorin für Biomedizinische Ethik an der Universität Kiel und Mitglied der Zentralen Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer

In its expansion to genomic, epidemiological and biomedical research, citizen science has been promoted as contributing to the democratisation of medical research and healthcare. At the same time, it has been criticised for reinforcing patterns of exclusion in health and biomedicine, and sometimes even creating new ones. Although citizen science has the potential to make biomedical research more inclusive, the benefits of current citizen science initiatives are not equally accessible for all people—in particular those who are resource-poor, located outside of traditional networks of healthcare services, or members of minorities and marginalised groups. In view of growing public investments in participatory research endeavours, we argue that it should be considered more explicitly if, and how, citizen science could help make research more inclusive, contribute to the public good, and possibly even lead to better and more equitable healthcare. Reflecting on emerging ethical concerns for scientific conduct and best medical practice, we propose a set of relevant considerations for researchers, practitioners, bioethicists, funders and participants who seek to advance ethical practices of citizen-led health initiatives, and address profound differences in position, privilege and power in research.

In its expansion to genomic, epidemiological and biomedical research, citizen science has been promoted as contributing to the democratization of medical research and health care. At the same time, it has been criticized for reinforcing patterns of exclusion in health and biomedicine, and sometimes even creating new ones. Although citizen science has the potential to make biomedical research more inclusive, the benefits of current citizen science initiatives are not equally accessible for all people – in particular those who are resource-poor, located outside of traditional networks of healthcare services, or members of minorities and marginalized groups. In view of growing public investments in participatory research endeavors, we argue that it should be considered more explicitly if, and how, citizen science could help make research more inclusive, contribute to the public good, and possibly even lead to better and more equitable healthcare. Reflecting on emerging ethical concerns for scientific conduct and best medical practice, we propose a set of systematic considerations for researchers, practitioners, bioethicists, funders, and participants who seek to advance ethical practices of citizen-led health initiatives, and address profound differences in position, privilege, and power in research.

The participation of non-professionally trained people in so-called citizen science (CS) projects is a much discussed topic at the moment. Frequently, however, the contribution of citizens is limited to only a few narrow tasks. Focusing on an initiative dedicated to the study of the human microbiome, this paper describes such a case where citizen participation is limited to the provision of funding, samples, and personal data. Researchers opted for a crowdsourced approaches because other forms of funding and recruitment did not seem feasible. We argue that despite the narrow understanding of participation in the context of some CS projects, they can address some of the democratic concerns related to scientific knowledge creation. For example, CS and crowdsourcing can help to foster dialogue between researchers and publics, and increase the influence of citizens on research agenda setting.

Abstract
The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for policymakers and scientific experts charged with preventing the spread of the virus. In upending the usual mechanisms for political deliberation, the pandemic offers a window into the co-production of governmental policy decisions and scientific evidence. Taking the German state of Bavaria as a case study, this article draws on expert interviews with individuals directly involved in high-level pandemic decision-making to explore the changing relationships between policymakers and scientific experts. The challenges that emerged in the Bavarian context illustrate that while uncertainty has long been understood as constitutive of scientific knowledge, it became a stumbling block for policymakers due to newfound degrees of urgency and implications of decision-making in relation to the pandemic. In order to better address the emergent, evolving problems posed by public health crises, uncertainty must also be understood as formative in the work of policy.

AbstractAs occupational health management (OHM) and work health promotion (WHP) become increasingly prominent in companies worldwide, little is known about consumers' attitudes towards work health‐related issues. Do consumers consider the health of employees in German companies to be important? Do German companies consider consumers to be relevant stakeholders in voluntary occupational health (OH) and well‐being activities? In the first of two qualitative interview studies, German consumers were asked which actors they consider to be responsible in OH contexts and whether or not they prefer OH‐related product attributes to other socially desirable ones. During a second qualitative interview study with representatives from German companies, suppliers, institutions, and organizations concerned with voluntary and legally mandatory OH, participants were asked about their expectations regarding whether or not consumers are interested in such OH activities. Both studies highlight the difference between the consumers' perspective on OH issues and responsibilities on the one hand and what companies and stakeholders believe consumers think about OH issues and responsibilities on the other. The findings show that consumers can recognize non‐mandatory OH and well‐being activities as elements of their own social responsibility (ConSR), while companies usually do not consider this perspective in their corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is very much a global health issue and requires collaborative, international health research efforts to address it. A valuable source of information for researchers is the large amount of digital health data that are continuously collected by electronic health record systems at health care organizations. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be the key legal framework with regard to using and sharing European digital health data for research purposes. However, concerns persist that the GDPR has made many organizations very risk-averse in terms of data sharing, even if the regulation permits such sharing. Health care organizations focusing on individual risk minimization threaten to undermine COVID-19 research efforts. In our opinion, there is an ethical obligation to use the research exemption clause of the GDPR during the COVID-19 pandemic to support global collaborative health research efforts. Solidarity is a European value, and here is a chance to exemplify it by using the GDPR regulatory framework in a way that does not hinder but actually fosters solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic. ; National Institutes of Health (Grant R01 EB017205)

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

BACKGROUND: The workplace has been identified as a priority setting for health promotion. There are potential advantages of systematically integrating Occupational Health Management (OHM) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, OHM and CSR are usually overseen by different management branches with different sets of values, and there is a lack of empirical research regarding interfaces between OHM and CSR. Germany offers a particularly useful setting due to legislation requiring health to be promoted in the workplace. This study aims to examine key stakeholders' views and experiences regarding interfaces between OHM and CSR in German companies. METHODS: Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of 77 German stakeholders from three different groups: experts in occupational health and corporate social responsibility from various companies (n = 35), business partners (n = 19), and various non-business partners (n = 23). Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified several areas in which OHM and CSR are already interacting at strategic, structural and cultural levels, but also highlighted several barriers that undermine a more meaningful interaction. Participants reported difficulties in articulating the underlying ethical values relevant to both OHM and CSR at the strategic level. Several structural barriers were also highlighted, including a lack of resources (both financial and knowledge), and OHM and CSR departments not being fully developed or undertaken at entirely different operational levels. Finally, the missing practical implementation of corporate philosophy was identified as a critical cultural barrier to interfaces between OHM and CSR, with existing guidelines and companies' philosophies that already connect OHM and CSR not being embraced by employees and managers. CONCLUSIONS: There is already significant overlap in the focus of OHM and CSR, at the structural, strategic and cultural levels in many German ...