What Justice, What Autonomy? The Ethical Constraints upon Personalisation

Owens, John; Mladenov, Teodor; Cribb, Alan

doi:10.1080/17496535.2016.1234631

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In culturally complex societies, we can observe promising efforts to promote equitable healthcare services 29. Moreover, as the concept of individual autonomy does not resonate well everywhere, ‘relational autonomy’ has entered discussions on individualisation and personalisation 30–3334 we need to observe the variation regarding the content of medical oaths due to different times, situations, religions and political systems.…”

Section: Ethics In Medical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics in cross-cultural encounters: a medical concern?

Aambø

2019

Med Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern medicine’s investment in the disembodied, objective ‘science’ of biomedicine, where patients are transformed from suffering subjects to objects of investigation, calls for heightened ethical awareness. Around the world, ethical codes of conduct emphasise beneficence and non-maleficence. Lately, we have also seen a quest for autonomy and equitable healthcare for diverse populations. However, these tenets alone do not effectively address the problems which regularly occur in transcultural consultations. By developing a ’space for reflection' based on selected writings of the moral philosophers Axel Honneth, Emmanuel Levinas and Hans Jonas, my aim is to cast light on this issue. Given the differing aspects of the doctor-patient relationship, clearly there are no clear-cut rules to obey. However, a thematic analysis of a quote from a Somali, female refugee, supported by some other studies on medical practice, suggests that, metaphorically speaking, within the developed space for reflection, medical practice has worked itself into a corner. By neglecting the patient as a social being, lacking openness to alterity, and not conveying needed information, they make it very difficult for patients to take responsibility for their situation. In spite of doctors’ benevolence, the result is alienation, increased suffering and thus, potential harm. Similar tendencies are reflected in a number of recent studies on medical consultations. Therefore, rather than blaming the single doctor for moral deceit, we should see these tendencies as a ‘forgetfulness of recognition’ that affects the medical profession, a disturbance which source probably is hidden in doctors training.

show abstract

Section: Ethics In Medical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics in cross-cultural encounters: a medical concern?

Aambø

2019

Med Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theory proposed by critical theorist Nancy Fraser can be very fruitful for disability policy analyses (for analyses in the Western capitalist context: Dodd, 2016;Knight, 2015;Mladenov, 2016; for analyses in the global context: Soldatic, 2013;Soldatic & Grech, 2014; for care policy: Swaton, 2017; for personal assistance: Mladenov, 2012;Mladenov, Owens, & Cribb, 2015;Owens, Mladenov, & Cribb, 2017). According to Fraser (2003), there are generally two dimensions of social justice: recognition justice and redistributive justice.…”

Section: The Bivalent Nature Of Social Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Theorising Disability Care (Non-)Personalisation in European Countries: Comparing Personal Assistance Schemes in Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom

Tschanz

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines four European countries (Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) with respect to their degree of disability care personalisation. The approach is embedded in a broader theoretical analysis, which in turn is inspired by the notion of bivalent social justice as presented by Nancy Fraser (2003). The theoretical argument is that claims for personal assistance are part of a broader movement toward emancipation. However, it is argued that the specific settings of welfare regimes provide structures that empower or mitigate the possible implementation of personal assistance schemes. The author argues that conservative-corporatist welfare regimes provide less-supportive opportunity structures for policy change pertaining to personal assistance than other welfare regimes. This heuristic argument is developed further by looking more closely at key figures of Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom as being ideal-typical welfare regime cases. Furthermore, the case of Switzerland is outlined in an in-depth manner as it seems to have conservativecorporatist characteristics regarding the organisation of disability care while simultaneously being difficult to theorise. It is the aim of this article to serve as a first heuristic undertaking for analysing the low level of disability care personalisation in certain continental European cases.

show abstract

“…If health care systems are to become genuinely co-creative, attention must be paid to who has opportunities to participate-in both decision making and actions-and on what terms [20]. By introducing new roles, partnerships, and collaborative models, cocreation offers the opportunity to proactively engage patients and other stakeholders who typically have been marginalized within clinical settings.…”

Section: Challenges Of Equity and Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

What Are the Professional, Political, and Ethical Challenges of Co-Creating Health Care Systems?

Singh

Owens

Cribb

2017

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-creation is seen by many as a means of meeting the multiple challenges facing contemporary health care systems by involving institutions, professionals, patients, and stakeholders in new roles, relationships, and collaborative practices. While co-creation has the potential to positively transform health care systems, it generates a number of political and ethical challenges that should not be overlooked. We suggest that those involved in envisioning and implementing cocreation initiatives pay close attention to significant questions of equity, power, and justice and to the fundamental challenge of securing a common vision of the aims of and agendas for health care systems. While such initiatives present significant opportunities for improvement, they need to be viewed in light of their accompanying professional, political, and ethical challenges. IntroductionWorldwide there is a growing awareness of the need to adapt health care systems to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. The reasons for this need are many but include shifting trends in demographics and illness, epidemiological knowledge of the social determinants of health, the radical possibilities of new technologies, and rapidly increasing health care costs as well as relatively long-standing concerns about the need to respect and support the autonomy of patients [1,2].

show abstract

What Justice, What Autonomy? The Ethical Constraints upon Personalisation

Cited by 18 publications

References 29 publications

Ethics in cross-cultural encounters: a medical concern?

Ethics in cross-cultural encounters: a medical concern?

Theorising Disability Care (Non-)Personalisation in European Countries: Comparing Personal Assistance Schemes in Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom

What Are the Professional, Political, and Ethical Challenges of Co-Creating Health Care Systems?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About