Bioethical policymaking for advanced medical technologies: Institutional characteristics and citizen participation in eight OECD countries

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 571-587

  Sato, Hajime ^a   Akabayashi, Akira ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; OECD; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 22944476820     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00156.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abelson, J. (2001). Understanding the role of contextual influences on local health-care decision making: Case study results from Ontario, Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 777-793.
2. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, E. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 239-251.
3. Aberbach, J. D., Putnum, R. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in Western democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Bayertz, K. (1994). The concepts of moral consensus: Philosophical reflections. In K. Bayertz (Ed.), The concept of moral consensus (pp. 41-57). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Beauchamp, T. L. (1982). Ethical theory and bioethics. In T. L. Beauchamp & L. Wakters (Eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-43). Belmont, WA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
6. Beierle, T. C. (2000). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16 (3/4), 75-103.
7. Byk, C. (1993). Comite Consultatif National d'Ethique. In Dictionnaire permanent bioethique et biotechnologie [National Consultative Committee on Ethics. In Permanent dictionary on bioethics and biotechnology], (pp. 265-290B). Montrouge, France: Editions legislatives.
8. Chopyak, J., & Levesque, P. (2002). Public participation in science and technology decision making: Trends for the future. Technology in Society, 24, 155-166.
9. Delvin, P. (1968). The enforcement of morals. London: Oxford University Press.
10. Durant, J. S. (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
11. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1995). Social trust. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12. Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
13. Engelhardt, H. T. (1994). The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
16. Fishkin, J. S., Luskin, R. C., & Jowell, R. (2000). Deliberative polling and public consultation. Parliamentary Affairs, 53, 657-666.
17. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first U. S. Consensus Conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 24(4), 451-482.
18. Herdman, R., & Jensen, J. (1997). The OTA story: The agency perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2/ 3), 131-144.
19. Hill, S. (1992). Democratic values and technological choices. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20. Joly, P. B., & Assouline, G. (2001). Assessing public debate and participation in technology assessment in Europe. ADAPTA Project Final Report. Grenoble: Unite de Grenoble, Departement d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales.
21. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
22. King, P. A. (1991) Commentary. In K. E. Hanna (Ed.), Biomedical politics (pp. 249-254). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. Kuhse, H. (1994). New reproductive technologies: Ethical conflict and the problem of consensus. In K. Bayertz (Ed.), The concept of moral consensus (pp. 75-96). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Leroux, T., Hirtle, M., & Fortin, L. N. (1998). An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21, 445-481.
25. McCallum, D. B., & Santos, S. L. (1997). Comparative risk analysis for priority setting. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 3(6), 1215-1234.
26. McIver, S. (1998). Healthy debate? An independent evaluation of citizens' juries in health settings. London: King's Fund Publishing.
27. Mohr, A. (2002). Of being seen to do the right thing: Provisional findings from the first Australian consensus conference on gene technology in the food chain. Science and Public Policy, 29(1): 2-12.
28. Pellegrino, E., Veatch, R. M., & Langan, J. P (1991). Ethics, trust, and the professions: Philosophical and cultural aspects. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
29. Petts, J. (1997). The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding of Science, 6(4), 359-381.
30. Pratchett, L. (1999). New fashions in public participation: Towards greater democracy, Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), 617-633.
31. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology and Human Values, 25 (1), 3-29.
32. Sass, H. M. (1998). Action driven consensus formation. In H. A. M. J. ten Have & H. M. Sass (Eds.), Consensus formation in healthcare ethics (pp. 159-173). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33. Smith, L. G. (1993). Impact assessment and sustainable resource management. Harlow, UK: Longman.
34. Smith, G., & Wales, C. (1999). The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Policy and Politics, 27(3), 295-308.
35. Stevens, M. L. T. (2000). Bioethics in America: Origins and cultural politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36. Stirling, A. (1999). On science and precaution in the management of technological risk: Report for ESTO. Brighton: SPRU.
37. ten Have, H. A. M. J., & Sass, H. M. (1988). Consensus formation in healthcare ethics. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38. Toulmin, S. E. (1987). The National Commission on Human Experimentation: Procedures and outcomes. In H. T. Engelhardt & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in sciences and technology (pp. 599-613). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39. Veatch, R. M. (1991). Consensus of expertise: The role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 16(4), 427-446.
40. Vig, N. J., & Paschen, H. (1999). Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
41. Zwart, H. (1998). Moral deliberation and moral warfare: Consensus formation in a pluralistic society. In H. A. M. J. ten Have & H. M. Sass (Eds.). Consensus formation in healthcare ethics (pp. 73-91). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.