Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T10:36:52.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Theory and Practice of Democratic Deliberation in Bioethics Research

from Part II - Practical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2017

By
Scott Kim
Edited by
Jonathan Ives ,
Michael Dunn  and
Alan Cribb
Jonathan Ives
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Michael Dunn
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Alan Cribb
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Empirical Bioethics
Theoretical and Practical Perspectives
 , pp. 177 - 194
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, J., Blacksher, E., Li, K., Boesveld, S., Goold, S. 2013. Public Deliberation in Health Policy and Bioethics: Mapping an Emerging, Interdisciplinary Field. Journal of Public Deliberation. 9(1).Google Scholar
Arledge, E. 2004. The Forgetting: A Portrait of Alzheimer’s. USA, PBS Paramount.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baren, J.M., Biros, M.H. 2007. The Research on Community Consultation: An Annotated Bibliography. Academic Emergency Medicine. 14(4): 346–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohman, J., Rehg, W. 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkin, J.R., Rothwell, E., Anderson, R., Stark, L., Goldenberg, A., Lewis, M., Burbank, M., Wong, B. 2012. Public Attitudes Regarding the Use of Residual Newborn Screening Specimens for Research. Pediatrics. 129(2):231–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bravo, G., Dubois, M.F., Wildeman, S.M., Graham, J., Cohen, C.A., Painter, K., Bellemare, S. 2010. Research with Decisionally Incapacitated Older Adults: Practices of Canadian Research Ethics Boards. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 32(6):1–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Bravo, G., Paquet, M., Dubois, M.F. 2003. Opinions Regarding Who Should Consent to Research on Behalf of an Older Adult Suffering from Dementia. The International Journal of Social Research and Practice. 2:49–65.Google Scholar
Cahill, M., Wichman, A. 2000. Research Involving Persons with Cognitive Impairments: Results of a Survey of Alzheimer Disease Research Centers in the United States. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders. 14(1):20–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carman, K.L., Mallery, C., Wang, G., Garfinkel, S., Richmond, J., Gilmore, D., Windham, A., Yang, M., Mangrum, R., Ginsburg, M., Sofaer, S., Fernandez, J., Gold, M., Pathak-Sen, E., Davies, T., Siu, A., Fishkin, J., Rosenberg, M., Fratto, A. 2013. Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration: Evaluating Effectiveness and Eliciting Public Views on Use of Evidence: Executive Summary. AHRQ. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
Carpini, M.X.D., Cook, F.L., Jacobs, L.R. 2004. Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science. 7(1):315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, L., Hartz-Carp, J. Gastil, J. Levine, P. 2005. Adapting and Combining Deliberative Designs. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 20–36.Google Scholar
Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science. 6(1):307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 2007. Deliberative Democracy. Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern? Rosenberg, S. (ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, N., Nethercut, D., Gastil, J., Levine, P. 2005. Citizens Juries: Creating a Trustworthy Voice of the People. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. 111–119.Google Scholar
Damschroder, L.J., Pritts, J.L., Neblo, M.A., Kalarickal, R.J., Creswell, J.W., Hayward, R.A. 2007. Patients, Privacy & Trust: Patients’ Willingness to Allow Researchers to Access Their Medical Records. Social Science & Medicine. 64(1):223–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elster, J. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J.S. 2006. Beyond Polling Alone: The Quest for an Informed Public. Critical Review. 18(1–3):157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J.S. 1997. The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J.S., Luskin, R.C. 2005. Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica. 40(3):284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 29(4):371–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J., Keith, W.M. 2005. A Nation That (Sometimes) Likes to Talk: A Brief History of Public Deliberation in the United States. In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. Gastil, J., Levine, P. (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 3–17.Google Scholar
Gastil, J., Kelshaw, T. 2000. Public Meetings: A Sampler of Deliberative Forums That Bring Officeholders and Citizens Together. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.Google Scholar
Gong, M.N., Winkel, G., Rhodes, R., Richardson, L.D., Silverstein, J.H. 2010. Surrogate Consent for Research Involving Adults with Impaired Decision Making: Survey of Institutional Review Board Practices. Critical Care Medicine. 38(11):2146–2154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goold, S.D., Neblo, M.A., Kim, S.Y.H., De Vries, R., Muhlberger, P. 2012. What Is Good Quality Public Deliberation? Hasting Center Report. 42(2):24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Watson, R. 2008. Using Deliberative Techniques to Engage the Community in Policy Development. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy. 5(1):16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutmann, A. 2011. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Guiding Principles for Emerging Technologies. Hastings Center Report. 41(4):17–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutmann, A., Thompson, D. 1997. Deliberating about Bioethics. Hastings Center Report. 27(3):38–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, D.E., Schwartz, J. 1998. Proxy Consent to Participation of the Decisionally Impaired in Medical Research: Maryland’s Policy Initiative. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy. 1(1):123–153.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine. 2011. Essential Health Benefits: Balancing Coverage and Cost. Washington, DC: Intitute of Medicine of the National Academies.Google Scholar
Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlawish, J.H.T., Knopman, D., Clark, C.M., Morris, J.C., Marson, D., Whitehouse, P.J., Kawas, C. 2002. Informed Consent for Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials: A Survey of Clinical Investigators. IRB: Ethics and Human Research. 24(5):1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlawish, J., Rubright, J., Casarett, D., Cary, M., ten Have, T., Sankar, P. 2009. Older Adults’ Attitudes toward Enrollment of Non-Competent Subjects Participating in Alzheimer’s Research. American Journal of Psychiatry. 166(2):182–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H. 2011. The Ethics of Informed Consent in Alzheimer Disease Research. Nature Reviews Neurology. 7:410–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H., Caine, E.D., Currier, G.W., Leibovici, A., Ryan, J.M. 2001. Assessing the Competence of Persons with Alzheimer’s Disease in Providing Informed Consent for Participation in Research. American Journal of Psychiatry. 158:712–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H., Kim, H.M., Knopman, D.S., De Vries, R., Damschroder, L., Appelbaum, P.S. 2011. Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Surrogate Consent for Dementia Research. Neurology. 77(24):2097–2104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H., Kim, H.M., Langa, K.M., Karlawish, J.H.T., Knopman, D.S., Appelbaum, P.S. 2009. Surrogate Consent for Dementia Research: A National Survey of Older Americans. Neurology. 72:149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H., Kim, H.M., McCallum, C., Tariot, P.N. 2005. What Do People at Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease Think about Surrogate Consent for Research? Neurology. 65:1395–1401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H., Kim, H.M., Ryan, K.A., Appelbaum, P.S., Knopman, D.S., Damschroder, L., De Vries, R. 2013. How Important Is ‘Accuracy’ of Surrogate Decision-Making for Research Participation? PLoS ONE. 8(1):e54790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S.Y.H., Uhlmann, R.A., Appelbaum, P.S., Knopman, D.S., Kim, H.M., Damschroder, L., Beattie, E., Struble, L., De Vries, R. 2010. Deliberative Assessment of Surrogate Consent in Dementia Research. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 6(4):342–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingdon, J. W. 2002. The reality of public policy making. Ethical Dimensions of Health Policy. Danis, M., Clancy, C. and Churchill, L. R. (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. 97–116.Google Scholar
Landeweer, E., Molewijk, B., Widdershoven, G. 2016. Moral Improvement through Interactive Research: A Practice Example of Dialogical Empirical Ethics. This volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, P., Fung, A., Gastil, J. 2005. Future Directions for Public Deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation. 1(1): Article 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
Levine, R.J. 1986. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lukensmeyer, C.J., Goldman, J., Brigham, S., Gastil, J., Levine, P. 2005. A Town Meeting for the Twenty-First Century. In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. Gastil, J., Levine, P. (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 154–163.Google Scholar
Melville, K., Willingham, T.L., Dedrick, J.R., Gastil, J., Levine, P. 2005. National Issues Forums: A Network of Communities Promoting Public Deliberation. In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. Gastil, J., Levine, P. (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 35–58.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, T., Delli Carpini, M.X., Huddy, L., Shapiro, R. 2002. The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence. Research in Micropolitics: Political Decision-Making, Deliberation, and Participation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 151–193.Google Scholar
Mitton, C., Smith, N., Peacock, S., Evoy, B., Abelson, J. 2009. Public Participation in Health Care Priority Setting: A Scoping Review. Health Policy. 91(3):219–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neblo, M.A. 2007. Change for the Better? Linking the Mechanisms of Deliberative Opinion Change to Normative Theory. Annu. Meet. Int. Soc. Polit. Psychol. Toronto.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2008. Dementia: Ethical Issues (Consultation Paper).Google Scholar
Okonkwo, O., Griffith, H.R., Belue, K., Lanza, S., Zamrini, E.Y., Harrell, L.E., Brockington, J.C., Clark, D., Raman, R., Marson, D.C. 2007. Medical Decision-Making Capacity in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment. Neurology. 69(15):1528–1535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryfe, D.M. 2005. Does Deliberative Democracy Work? Annual Review of Political Science. 8(1):49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, E.R., Dunn, L.B., Wimer, J., Gonzales, M., Kim, S.Y.H. 2008. Proxy Consent to Research: The Legal Landscape. Yale Journal of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics. 8(1):37–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Secko, D.M., Preto, N., Niemeyer, S., Burgess, M.M. 2009. Informed Consent in Biobank Research: A Deliberative Approach to the Debate. Social Science & Medicine. 68(4):781–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, I. 2016. Evidence, Epistemology and Empirical Bioethics. This volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, J., Bachtiger, A., Sporndli, M., Steenbergen, M. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Cross-National Study of Parliamentary Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. 2007. Group Polarization and 12 Angry Men. Negotiation Journal. 23(4):443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. 2002. The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy. 10:175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D.F. 2008. Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science. 11(1):497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, R.G., Ryan, K.A., Stanczyk, A., Appelbaum, P.S., Damschroder, L., Knopman, D., Kim, S. 2013. Public’s Approach to Surrogate Consent for Dementia Research: Cautious Pragmatism. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 21:364–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vries, R., Stanczyk, A., Ryan, K., Kim, S.Y.H. 2011. A Framework for Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: Enhancing Deliberation as a Tool for Bioethics. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 6(3):3–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vries, R., Stanczyk, A., Wall, I.F., Uhlmann, R., Damschroder, L.J., Kim, S.Y. 2010. Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: A Case Study of Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Surrogate Consent for Research. Social Science & Medicine. 70(12):1896–1903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wendler, D., Martinez, R.A., Fairclough, D., Sunderland, T., Emanuel, E. 2002. Views of Potential Subjects toward Proposed Regulations for Clinical Research with Adults Unable to Consent. American Journal of Psychiatry. 159(4):585–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×