Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics

The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the “deliberative turn” in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the alloca...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 2015-07, Vol.24 (3), p.272-280
Main Authors: SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE, MAMELI, MATTEO, BONIOLO, GIOVANNI
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advisory Committees - ethics
Bioethical Issues
Bioethics
Community Participation
Decision Making - ethics
Democracy
Health care policy
Health policy
Humans
Internet
Policy Making
Politics
Special Section: Bioethics and Information Technology
United Kingdom
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-713bb28987f3c7d0a4bfa812d432548444ef61eb71c3c01a75f80f6b922c6c603
container_end_page 280
container_issue 3
container_start_page 272
container_title Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
container_volume 24
creator SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE
MAMELI, MATTEO
BONIOLO, GIOVANNI
description The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the “deliberative turn” in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an “epistocratic” proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0963180114000590
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1748860513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0963180114000590</cupid><sourcerecordid>1687641807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-713bb28987f3c7d0a4bfa812d432548444ef61eb71c3c01a75f80f6b922c6c603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE9LxDAQxYMo7rr6AbxIwYuXaiZJk_So6_oHhD2o55KmiWbptmvSCvvtTdlVRBEPwxzm997wHkLHgM8Bg7h4xDmnIDEAwxhnOd5BY2A8TwkwsYvGwzkd7iN0EMIiMoRg2EcjwiOdZ3SM0tnKha7VXul1YlufzJvaNSa5NrUrjVedezfJlWtN9-p0OER7VtXBHG33BD3fzJ6md-nD_PZ-evmQaprJLhVAy5LIXApLtaiwYqVVEkjFKMmYZIwZy8GUAjTVGJTIrMSWlzkhmmuO6QSdbXxXvn3rTeiKpQva1LVqTNuHAgSTMmYA-j_KpeAsliAievoDXbS9b2KQgeJ5HD5QsKG0b0PwxhYr75bKrwvAxVB78av2qDnZOvfl0lRfis-eI0C3pmpZele9mG-__7T9AH-FiNI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1686968667</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Lexis+ Journals</source><creator>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE ; MAMELI, MATTEO ; BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</creator><creatorcontrib>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE ; MAMELI, MATTEO ; BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</creatorcontrib><description>The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the “deliberative turn” in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an “epistocratic” proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0963-1801</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-2147</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0963180114000590</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26059953</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Advisory Committees - ethics ; Bioethical Issues ; Bioethics ; Community Participation ; Decision Making - ethics ; Democracy ; Health care policy ; Health policy ; Humans ; Internet ; Policy Making ; Politics ; Special Section: Bioethics and Information Technology ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 2015-07, Vol.24 (3), p.272-280</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-713bb28987f3c7d0a4bfa812d432548444ef61eb71c3c01a75f80f6b922c6c603</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1686968667/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1686968667?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12846,12861,21387,21394,21395,27865,27866,27924,27925,30999,33611,33612,33985,33986,34530,34531,34775,34776,43733,43948,44115,44200,72960,74221,74468,74639,74728</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26059953$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAMELI, MATTEO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</creatorcontrib><title>Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics</title><title>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</title><addtitle>Camb Q Healthc Ethics</addtitle><description>The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the “deliberative turn” in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an “epistocratic” proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation.</description><subject>Advisory Committees - ethics</subject><subject>Bioethical Issues</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Community Participation</subject><subject>Decision Making - ethics</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health policy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Policy Making</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Special Section: Bioethics and Information Technology</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0963-1801</issn><issn>1469-2147</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE9LxDAQxYMo7rr6AbxIwYuXaiZJk_So6_oHhD2o55KmiWbptmvSCvvtTdlVRBEPwxzm997wHkLHgM8Bg7h4xDmnIDEAwxhnOd5BY2A8TwkwsYvGwzkd7iN0EMIiMoRg2EcjwiOdZ3SM0tnKha7VXul1YlufzJvaNSa5NrUrjVedezfJlWtN9-p0OER7VtXBHG33BD3fzJ6md-nD_PZ-evmQaprJLhVAy5LIXApLtaiwYqVVEkjFKMmYZIwZy8GUAjTVGJTIrMSWlzkhmmuO6QSdbXxXvn3rTeiKpQva1LVqTNuHAgSTMmYA-j_KpeAsliAievoDXbS9b2KQgeJ5HD5QsKG0b0PwxhYr75bKrwvAxVB78av2qDnZOvfl0lRfis-eI0C3pmpZele9mG-__7T9AH-FiNI</recordid><startdate>20150701</startdate><enddate>20150701</enddate><creator>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE</creator><creator>MAMELI, MATTEO</creator><creator>BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150701</creationdate><title>Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics</title><author>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE ; MAMELI, MATTEO ; BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-713bb28987f3c7d0a4bfa812d432548444ef61eb71c3c01a75f80f6b922c6c603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Advisory Committees - ethics</topic><topic>Bioethical Issues</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Community Participation</topic><topic>Decision Making - ethics</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health policy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Policy Making</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Special Section: Bioethics and Information Technology</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAMELI, MATTEO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SCHIAVONE, GIUSEPPE</au><au>MAMELI, MATTEO</au><au>BONIOLO, GIOVANNI</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics</atitle><jtitle>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</jtitle><addtitle>Camb Q Healthc Ethics</addtitle><date>2015-07-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>272</spage><epage>280</epage><pages>272-280</pages><issn>0963-1801</issn><eissn>1469-2147</eissn><abstract>The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the “deliberative turn” in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an “epistocratic” proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>26059953</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0963180114000590</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0963-1801
ispartof Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 2015-07, Vol.24 (3), p.272-280
issn 0963-1801
1469-2147
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1748860513
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Cambridge Journals Online; Art, Design and Architecture Collection; Politics Collection; Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Sociology Collection; PAIS Index; Lexis+ Journals
subjects Advisory Committees - ethics
Bioethical Issues
Bioethics
Community Participation
Decision Making - ethics
Democracy
Health care policy
Health policy
Humans
Internet
Policy Making
Politics
Special Section: Bioethics and Information Technology
United Kingdom
title Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T21%3A52%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Epistocracy%20for%20Online%20Deliberative%20Bioethics&rft.jtitle=Cambridge%20quarterly%20of%20healthcare%20ethics&rft.au=SCHIAVONE,%20GIUSEPPE&rft.date=2015-07-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=272&rft.epage=280&rft.pages=272-280&rft.issn=0963-1801&rft.eissn=1469-2147&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0963180114000590&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1687641807%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-713bb28987f3c7d0a4bfa812d432548444ef61eb71c3c01a75f80f6b922c6c603%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1686968667&rft_id=info:pmid/26059953&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0963180114000590&rfr_iscdi=true