Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach

Keulartz, Jozef; Schermer, Maartje; Korthals, Michiel; Swierstra, Tsjalling

doi:10.1177/0162243903259188

Cited by 140 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies in other settings have reported similarly high consent rates for the use of residual tissue in medical research (Hamajima et al, 1998;Malone et al, 2002;Stegmayr and Asplund, 2002;Jack and Womack, 2003;Furness and Nicholson, 2004;Chen et al, 2005;Wheeler et al, 2007;Bryant et al, 2008). Our results show that patients prefer to be informed about research with tissue, refuting authors who argue that patients do not need to be informed and do not need to be provided with the opportunity to opt-out or withhold consent for future research with residual tissue (Keulartz et al, 2004;Swierstra, 2004). Respondents felt respected and valued by being informed, but most felt that actually giving consent was of secondary importance (66% did not prefer 'one-time consent'), as was also observed by Hamilton et al (2007) and previous studies of our own group (Vermeulen et al, 2009a, b).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine which consent procedure patients prefer for use of stored tissue for research purposes and what the effects of consent procedures on actual consenting behaviour are. METHODS: We offered 264 cancer patients three different consent procedures: 'one-time general consent' (asked written informed consent), 'opt-out plus' (had the opportunity to opt out by a form), or the standard hospital procedure (control group). The two intervention groups received a specific leaflet about research with residual tissue and verbal information. The control group only received a general hospital leaflet including opt-out information, which is the procedure currently in use. Subsequently, all patients received a questionnaire to examine their preferences for consent procedures. RESULTS: In all, 99% of patients consented to research with their residual tissue. In the 'one-time consent' group 85% sent back their consent form. Patients preferred 'opt-out plus' (43%) above 'one-time consent' (34%) or 'opt-out' (16%), whereas 8% indicated that they did not need to receive information about research with residual tissues or be given the opportunity to make a choice. CONCLUSIONS: The 'opt-out plus' procedure, which places fewer demands on administrative resources than 'one-time consent', can also address the information needs of patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dies behaupten etwa pragmatistische autoren [10] oder Vertreter einer sog. "integrativen empirischen ethik" ([16-18, 25]; dazu auch: [19,20]).…”

Section: Zur Methodik Angewandter Ethikunclassified

What does medical ethics need empirical methods for?

Düwell

2009

Ethik Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3O r i g i n a l a r b e i t Zusammenfassung Der einsatz empirischer Forschungsmethoden in der Medizinethik hat zu Forderungen nach einem gewandelten Selbstverständnis der Medizinethik geführt, die sich mehr als eine integrierte Disziplin aus Sozialwissenschaften und ethik verstehen solle. Dagegen wird hier die these vertreten, dass über Sinn und Unsinn des einsatzes empirischer Methoden zunächst eine moralphilosophische Diskussion erforderlich ist. Medizinethiker müssen ausweisen können, welche empirischen Forschungsresultate zur beantwortung normativer Fragen erforderlich sind. ein solcher ausweis beruht seinerseits jedoch auf normativen annahmen, die ihrerseits moralphilosophischer legitimation bedürfen. Der beitrag untersucht daher den einsatz empirischer Methoden in der Medizinethik im Hinblick auf Verhältnis von ethischem grundlagendiskurs und Methodologie der angewandten ethik. abschließend wird gefragt, ob nicht ein großteil von empirischen Studien in der Medizinethik aus forschungsethischen gründen problematisch ist. Schlüsselwörter empirische ethik · Sozialwissenschaften · interdisziplinarität · ethische Methodologie · Metaethik What does medical ethics need empirical methods for? an inquiry in normative ethicsAbstract Definition of the problem the use of empirical methods in medical ethics and bioethics has generated proposals for reconceptualizing medical ethics as a discipline that integrates ethics and social science. Arguments the position taken in the present paper, by contrast, is that what is needed, in the first place, is a moral-philosophical evaluation of when it makes sense to employ empirical methods. Medical ethicists must demonstrate what empirical research is necessary for answering normative questions. any such justification will, however, necessarily rely on normative assumptions that, for their part, M. Düwell require moral-philosophical justification. The paper examines the use of empirical methods in medical ethics in terms of the appropriate relationship between the methodology of applied ethics and debates over the foundations of ethics. the paper concludes by raising the question of whether it is not the case that most empirical studies in medical ethics are of dubious merit, by the accepted standards of research ethics.

show abstract

“…Thus, science, technology and society are not separate entities but are fundamentally entangled. Furthermore, STS have shown that technological artifacts are not to be understood as neutral and passive instruments but rather as value-laden and active forces, as 'agents' that influence how we live, how we act, how we relate to each other, how we understand the world and our place in it, and what we aspire to, desire and hope for (Keulartz et al 2004;Verbeek 2005). To return to the bumper sticker: indeed, the gun may not shoot someone on its own, but its availability certainly does influence how the user thinks and acts.…”

Section: Co-evolution Of Science and Technology And Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, Science & Technology Studies (STS) have revealed the dynamic interaction between science and technology and society. Technology development is not an autonomous process and its artifacts are not socially inert. Society and technology shape each other. Technologies often have 'soft impacts' in terms of unpredicted side effects on individuals and society. Nevertheless, current societal discourse on technological innovations is still dominated by 'hard impacts' such as quantifiable risks for health, safety and the environment. Furthermore, participants in socio-scientific discourses often underestimate their agency in influencing technological innovations, and at the same time overestimate their freedom of choice to use a technology. Past debates on technological innovations have shown how these debates were framed and often caught in fruitless discourse patterns or arguments. Interventionist STS research experiments with solutions to this problem. Assuming that an STS perspective is helpful in reframing and articulating socio-scientific classroom discourses, the case of genetic testing is used to explore this. An important positive 'hard impact' of genetic testing is disease prevention. However, this is put into perspective by addressing 'soft impacts' such as limited access to certain careers based on genetic risk and changes in the conception of health and the perception of responsibility for one's health. Discussion stoppers such as 'playing God' or 'We can't stop technological advancement' can be challenged through uncovering underlying assumptions. The use of narratives and future scenarios in classrooms seems 123 Sci & Educ (2014) 23:485-507 DOI 10.1007 fruitful in provoking imagination and engaging students in public debates on technological innovations.The message of the gene appears to be equivocal. It promises both certainty, order, predictability, control and helplessness, limitation and acceptance of biological fate. It can stress both similarities and differences. It can discover human relations and at the same time break them off (Ten Have 1995, p. 29; translation from Dutch).

show abstract

Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach

Cited by 140 publications

References 23 publications

A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples

A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples

What does medical ethics need empirical methods for?

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About