Lifestyle-related diseases and individual responsibility through the prism of solidarity

Buyx, Alena; Prainsack, Barbara

doi:10.1258/ce.2012.012008

Cited by 37 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, adults may be seen as responsible for their own health to a greater extent, and many diseases that affect them could be less likely to invoke empathy 14 particularly when the diseases are perceived to follow from lifestyle choices. 15 Age discrimination in development assistance for health is a potential cause of differential treatment of older versus younger people. Fund-raising campaigns frequently use images of children, but seldom those of older people.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vast Majority Of Development Assistance For Health Funds Target Those Below Age Sixty

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vast Majority Of Development Assistance For Health Funds Target Those Below Age Sixty

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…27 Moreover, the complexities inherent in personalized assessment could lead to a lack of engagement and uptake among people from certain ethnic 28 and lower socioeconomic groups. 29 Therefore, active communication strategies and quality assurance processes will be needed to mitigate any exacerbation of existing inequalities.…”

Section: Ethical Legal and Social Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications

Chowdhury

Dent

Pashayan

et al. 2013

Genetics in Medicine

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.Genet Med 2013:15(6):423–432

show abstract

“…This critique highlights the negative aspects of 'responsibilisation' for health by stressing the potential unwanted consequences of assuming that people can be held morally responsible for their health. 21,[65][66][67] From this perspective, the main problem with the new wave is not that it invokes responsibility for the promotion of a particular standard for health across the population (see above); rather, it is the assumption that agents are sufficiently free and skilled so as to be in charge of their health-related choices. Extensive evidence has been produced regarding the gradient between health and socioeconomic status.…”

Section: The Role Of Paternalistic Interferences In the New Wave Of Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Empowerment in healthcare policy making: three domains of substantive controversy

Chiapperino

Tengland

2015

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper distinguishes between the uses of empowerment across different contexts in healthcare policy and health promotion, providing a model for the ethical and political scrutiny of those uses. We argue that the controversies currently engendered by empowerment are better understood by means of a historical distinction between two concepts of empowerment, namely, what we call the radical empowerment approach and the new wave of empowerment. Building on this distinction, we present a research agenda for ethicists and policy makers, highlighting three domains of controversy raised by the new wave of empowerment, namely: (1) the relationship between empowerment and paternalistic interferences on the part of professionals; (2) the evaluative commitment of empowerment strategies to the achievement of health-related goals; and (3) the problems arising from the emphasis on responsibility for health in recent uses of empowerment. Finally, we encourage the explicit theorisation of these moral controversies as a necessary step for the development and implementation of ethically legitimate empowerment processes.

show abstract

Lifestyle-related diseases and individual responsibility through the prism of solidarity

Cited by 37 publications

References 30 publications

Vast Majority Of Development Assistance For Health Funds Target Those Below Age Sixty

Vast Majority Of Development Assistance For Health Funds Target Those Below Age Sixty

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications

Empowerment in healthcare policy making: three domains of substantive controversy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About