Why Deliberative Democracy?

Gutmann, Amy; Thompson, Dennis F.

doi:10.1515/9781400826339

Cited by 1,713 publications

(1,032 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

874

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In reality, most group practices probably adopt an approach that is somewhere between these two extremes. In this way, they have an opportunity to model the principles of "deliberative democracy," a strategy endorsed by many political scientists for society as a whole [17][18][19]. This approach emphasizes the importance of authentic deliberation on areas of disagreement rather than more mechanistic approaches to conflict resolution such as voting and majority rule [17,18].…”

Section: When Disagreements Exist Within a Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

How Should Clinicians Weigh the Benefits and Harms of Discussing Politicized Topics that Influence Their Individual Patients’ Health?

Alame¹,

Truog

2017

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health implications of politically charged phenomena are particularly difficult for physicians to discuss with their patients and communities. Addressing climate change and its associated health effects involves trade-offs between health and economic prosperity, necessitating that physicians weigh the potential benefits and risks of discussing climate change health effects. We argue that the potential benefits of physician communication and advocacy ultimately outweigh the potential risks. Therefore, physicians should be supported in their efforts to educate their patients and communities about climate change health effects. Furthermore, democratic deliberation could prove helpful in addressing disagreements among physicians within a practice about such politicized health topics. CaseDr. Schwartz is one of four family medicine physicians at a rural, private group practice. He has been part of the practice for more than three decades and has developed strong relationships with many local families. One of his major areas of interest is preventative medicine, and he is viewed as a local expert. He has been instrumental in many community health initiatives, including the creation of smoking cessation and weight loss programs for patients in his practice.One of Dr. Schwartz's biggest concerns in his community is a large coal-burning power plant located about a mile outside of the town center. Generally, other community members don't seem to mind the power plant, and many are grateful for the employment it brings to their remote region. However, Dr. Schwartz has recently been concerned by rising rates of respiratory illnesses, such as asthma, among his patients. He is aware that living in a zip code containing a fossil fuel-fired power plant is associated with higher rates of respiratory disease including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute respiratory infection [1]. Moreover, he knows that coalfired power plants are the largest source of toxic substances in the air in the United States and that exposure to pollutants from power plants is associated with asthma, low infant birth weight, and premature mortality in adults [2]. Dr. Schwartz is worried about

show abstract

Section: When Disagreements Exist Within a Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

How Should Clinicians Weigh the Benefits and Harms of Discussing Politicized Topics that Influence Their Individual Patients’ Health?

Alame¹,

Truog

2017

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participation through deliberative practices has taken many forms in the various spheres of social life, shaped by two theoretical strands of democratic theory: "deliberative democracy" and "participatory democracy". The deliberative approach, developed since 1980, is based on communication as a process that allows citizens to participate in the construction of the common good (Habermas, 1996;Cohen, 1997;Gutmann and Thompson, 2004;Dryzek, 2009). The latter is the so called "participatory" approach, whose origins date back to the intensification of globalization processes which led to a reformulation of several aspects of nation states, including decision-making processes (Santos, 2002).…”

Section: Civil Society's Involvement In Healthcare Systems: Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen participation and discontent in three Southern European health systems

Serapioni

Matos

2014

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tParticipation has featured in political agendas in recent decades and the domain of healthcare has not been indifferent to its appeal. Although emerging later than in other European regions, the involvement of civil society in healthcare decision-making procedures has proved one of the biggest challenges facing Southern European health systems. The health systems of the countries considered in this analysis e Italy, Portugal and Spain e underwent reforms that brought citizen participation to the forefront of the health system. Through national laws or health plans, each of these countries has recognised the need to promote participation in order to 'give a voice' to citizens in the health sector. Accordingly, a range of significant activities have been implemented in the region, although they have been developed unequally within national territories, at different paces and involving the mobilisation of different actors. This article focuses on the most relevant experiences of citizen participation designed and implemented in the three selected countries, describing their key features and potential, as well as the main critical issues and contradictions that have emerged over time. Particular emphasis is given to the impact of the current financial crisis on Southern European national health systems, especially in terms of participatory methods, the way in which citizen participation is progressing and civil society's reaction to these important changes.

show abstract

“…Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson define deliberative democracy as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives) justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching conclusions that are binding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future" [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These range from changes in the individual participant's knowledge and civic-mindedness to increased public acceptance of policy decisions and improved societal decision making [2,4,5,13,[15][16][17]. Deliberation can uncover, articulate, and foster shared values as well as diverging perspectives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, public deliberation aspires to give voice to underserved groups by providing a shared forum in which majority and minority perspectives are equally encouraged-a goal dependent on the sponsor's commitment and willingness to support and engage participants from diverse backgrounds. This goal ultimately reinforces deliberative outcomes involving both individual participants and social decision-making [4,5,13,18,19]. Finally, deliberation is an inherently transformative process-designed to alter not only participants who go through the process but also the sponsors and other decision-making entities that seek public input.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation