评估民主审议质量的框架：强化审议作为生物伦理学工具的作用
A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics.
作者信息
De Vries Raymond, Stanczyk Aimee E, Ryan Kerry A, Kim Scott Y H
机构信息
Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
出版信息
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 Sep;6(3):3-17. doi: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.3.3.
Abstract
The goal of democratic deliberation (DD) bioethics research is to elicit informed and considered opinions on ethically controversial issues. But the trustworthiness of DD outcomes depends on the quality of deliberations. We provide a framework to evaluate the quality of deliberations and apply that framework to a DD project on surrogate consent for dementia research involving randomly selected samples of the older general public. Using a mixed method approach, we found that participants were very satisfied with the sessions, learned and used new information, were respectful and collaborative, and were able to "reason together" to arrive at societal policy recommendations. Implications and limitations of the paper are also discussed.
摘要
民主审议（DD）生物伦理学研究的目标是就伦理争议问题引出明智且经过深思熟虑的意见。但DD结果的可信度取决于审议的质量。我们提供了一个评估审议质量的框架，并将该框架应用于一个关于痴呆症研究替代同意的DD项目，该项目涉及随机抽取的老年普通公众样本。采用混合方法，我们发现参与者对会议非常满意，学习并使用了新信息，相互尊重且协作良好，并且能够“共同推理”以得出社会政策建议。本文还讨论了其意义和局限性。
相似文献
1
A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics.评估民主审议质量的框架：强化审议作为生物伦理学工具的作用
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 Sep;6(3):3-17. doi: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.3.3.
2
Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research.评估民主审议的质量：以公众对代理同意研究伦理的审议为例。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jun;70(12):1896-1903. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.031. Epub 2010 Mar 16.
3
Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies.评估公众在研究伦理争议中的观点：协商民主与生物伦理学是天然盟友。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009 Dec;4(4):3-16. doi: 10.1525/jer.2009.4.4.3.
4
Promises and perils of public deliberation: contrasting two national bioethics commissions on embryonic stem cell research.公众商议的承诺与风险：对比两个关于胚胎干细胞研究的国家生物伦理委员会
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2005 Sep;15(3):269-88. doi: 10.1353/ken.2005.0017.
5
Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research.在痴呆症研究中对代理同意进行审议性评估。
Alzheimers Dement. 2010 Jul;6(4):342-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2009.06.001. Epub 2010 Feb 26.
6
Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research.公众讨论对痴呆症研究中代理同意态度的影响。
Neurology. 2011 Dec 13;77(24):2097-104. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823648cb. Epub 2011 Oct 5.
7
Bioethics, religion, and democratic deliberation: policy formation and embryonic stem cell research.生物伦理学、宗教与民主审议：政策形成与胚胎干细胞研究
HEC Forum. 2005 Mar;17(1):49-63. doi: 10.1007/s10730-005-4950-8.
8
A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles.一项关于生物医学艾滋病毒预防试验中青少年自主同意可接受性的四地点公众审议项目：评估促进者对关键原则的忠诚度。
JMIR Form Res. 2025 Feb 13;9:e58451. doi: 10.2196/58451.
9
Bioethics may transform public policy in Japan.生物伦理学可能会改变日本的公共政策。
Politics Life Sci. 1994 Feb;13(1):89-90. doi: 10.1017/s0730938400022280.
10
Epistocracy for online deliberative bioethics.在线协商生物伦理学的知识精英统治
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015 Jul;24(3):272-80. doi: 10.1017/S0963180114000590.
引用本文的文献
1
On Collaborative Governance: Building Consensus on Priorities to Manage Invasive Species Through Collective Action.论协同治理：通过集体行动就管理入侵物种的优先事项达成共识。
Plant Environ Interact. 2025 Mar 27;6(2):e70029. doi: 10.1002/pei3.70029. eCollection 2025 Apr.
2
A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles.一项关于生物医学艾滋病毒预防试验中青少年自主同意可接受性的四地点公众审议项目：评估促进者对关键原则的忠诚度。
JMIR Form Res. 2025 Feb 13;9:e58451. doi: 10.2196/58451.
3
Public deliberation to assess patient views on biosimilar medication switching for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.公众协商评估炎症性肠病患者对生物类似药转换治疗的看法。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Oct 9;24(1):1209. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11570-3.
4
Assessing Facilitator Fidelity to Principles of Public Deliberation: Tutorial.评估促进者对公众审议原则的忠实度：教程。
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Dec 13;7:e51202. doi: 10.2196/51202.
5
Policy Preferences Regarding Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Cancer: Public Deliberations.癌症患者对健康数据共享的政策偏好：公众审议
JMIR Cancer. 2023 Jan 31;9:e39631. doi: 10.2196/39631.
6
Testing a deliberative democracy method with citizens of African ancestry to weigh pros and cons of targeted screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.用非洲裔公民测试审议民主方法，权衡针对遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌风险的靶向筛查的利弊。
Front Public Health. 2022 Nov 8;10:984926. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.984926. eCollection 2022.
7
Public Deliberation Process on Patient Perspectives on Health Information Sharing: Evaluative Descriptive Study.关于患者对健康信息共享观点的公众审议过程：评价性描述性研究
JMIR Cancer. 2022 Sep 16;8(3):e37793. doi: 10.2196/37793.
8
Assessing the quality of deliberative stakeholder consultations involving allied health professionals in pediatric palliative care and hematology/oncology in Canada.评估加拿大儿科姑息治疗和血液学/肿瘤学中涉及辅助卫生专业人员的决策利益相关者咨询的质量。
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Dec 15;20(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00884-2.
9
How might diabetes organisations address diabetes-related stigma? Findings from a deliberative democratic case study.糖尿病组织如何应对与糖尿病相关的耻辱感？一项协商民主案例研究的结果。
Health Expect. 2022 Oct;25(5):2213-2222. doi: 10.1111/hex.13398. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
10
Communication of Pharmacogenomic test results and treatment plans in pediatric oncology: deliberative stakeholder consultations with parents.儿科肿瘤中药物基因组学检测结果和治疗计划的沟通：与家长进行的深思熟虑的利益相关者咨询。
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Jan 12;20(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00709-2.
本文引用的文献
1
Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research.公众讨论对痴呆症研究中代理同意态度的影响。
Neurology. 2011 Dec 13;77(24):2097-104. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823648cb. Epub 2011 Oct 5.
2
Does the public think it is reasonable to wait for more evidence before funding innovative health technologies? The case of PET scanning in Ontario.公众是否认为在为创新型卫生技术提供资金之前等待更多证据是合理的？以安大略省的正电子发射断层扫描为例。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Apr;26(2):192-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000024.
3
Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research.评估民主审议的质量：以公众对代理同意研究伦理的审议为例。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jun;70(12):1896-1903. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.031. Epub 2010 Mar 16.
4
Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies.评估公众在研究伦理争议中的观点：协商民主与生物伦理学是天然盟友。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009 Dec;4(4):3-16. doi: 10.1525/jer.2009.4.4.3.
5
Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review.公众参与医疗保健优先事项的设定：一项范围综述。
Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):219-28. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
6
Engaging citizens: lessons from building Brazil's national health system.让公民参与：建设巴西国家卫生系统的经验教训。
Soc Sci Med. 2008 May;66(10):2173-84. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.038. Epub 2008 Mar 11.
7
Can we trust "democratic deliberation"?我们能信任“民主审议”吗？
Hastings Cent Rep. 2007 Jul-Aug;37(4):22-5. doi: 10.1353/hcr.2007.0051.
8
Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development.评估老年人参与食品政策制定的两种协商参与方法。
Health Policy. 2007 Aug;82(3):302-19. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.09.010. Epub 2006 Oct 25.
9
Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.关于审议方法的思考：公众参与过程的设计与评估问题
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(2):239-51. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x.
10
What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public.什么是良好的公众参与过程？来自公众的五个观点。
Environ Manage. 2001 Mar;27(3):435-50. doi: 10.1007/s002670010160.
Zotero 插件