scholarly journals Beyond privacy vs. health: a justification analysis of the contact-tracing apps debate in the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lotje Elizabeth Siffels
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Orders Of Worth ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government

Abstract In the Netherlands, as in many other nations, the government has proposed the use of a contact-tracing app as a means of helping to contain the spread of the corona virus. The discussion about the use of such an app has mostly been framed in terms of a tradeoff between privacy and public health. This research statement presents an analysis of the Dutch public debate on Corona-apps by using the framework of Orders of Worth by Boltanski and Thévenot (1991). It argues that this framework can help us to move beyond the dichotomy of privacy vs. public health by recognizing a plurality of conceptions of the common good in the debate about contact-tracing apps. This statement presents six orders of worth present in the Dutch debate: civic, domestic, vitality, market, industrial and project, and argues that the identification of which common goods are at stake will contribute to discussions about the use of this technology from a standpoint with a richer ethical perspective.

Paternalism, Autonomy, and the Common Good

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-109
Author(s):  
James Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Health Policies ◽  
Public Health Policies ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common

Public health policies are often accused of being paternalistic, or to show the ‘Nanny State’ in action. This chapter argues that complaints about paternalism in public health policy are, for a variety of reasons, much less convincing than is often thought. First, for conceptual reasons, it is difficult to specify what it would be for a policy to be paternalistic. Second, two of the elements that make paternalism problematic at an individual level—interference with liberty and lack of individual consent—are endemic to public policy contexts in general and so cannot be used to support the claim that paternalism in particular is wrong. The chapter concludes that instead of debating whether a given policy is paternalistic, it would be better to ask whether the infringements of liberty it contains are justifiable, without placing any weight on whether or not those infringements of liberty are paternalistic.

scholarly journals Solidarity in genomic healthcare? Results of the Belgian citizen forum (2018)

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Mayeur ◽  
W Van Hoof
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
Genomic Medicine ◽  
Genomic Data ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Medical Needs ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government

Abstract Genomic medicine requires to collect and use a huge amount of patient and citizen data. Therefore, the Belgian Minister of Public Health decided to organize a citizen forum on the ethical, legal and societal issues (ELSI) surrounding the use of genomic information in healthcare. This initiative follows the trend of public involvement in Europe regarding ELSI in genomics. During three weekends, a panel of 32 citizens, informed by experts of different backgrounds, produced political recommendations. We will focus on their conception of solidarity, which is crucial to take into account when considering policies on data sharing in genomics. Citizens of the panel consider their genome simultaneously as the individual’s property and as something to be shared for the common good. As a consequence, the panel agrees to support solidarity provided individual interests, such as privacy protection, are respected. By solidarity, the panel means supporting genomic data sharing for the common good, which they define as scientific research that improves knowledge (on both prevention and diagnostics) to build a fair society where everyone has an equal opportunity to live healthy. According to the panel, the government should actively encourage citizens to share their genomic data, but no one can be forced to do it. For instance, the government could motivate citizens to share their genomic data by partially reimbursing genomic tests undertaken without medical prescription. However, because everyone has an equal right to live healthy, the panel esteems that genomic tests for medical needs should be accessible for all, thanks to a well-thought-out and sustainable refund system. Key messages Citizens support solidarity in genomic medicine, but demand proportional individual protection. As citizens become increasingly important stakeholders in genomic medicine, all public authorities should actively engage citizens in relevant healthcare policies.

Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance

Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Mann ◽  
Norman J. Ornstein
Keyword(s):  
Republican Party ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government ◽  
Constitutional System

The framers designed a constitutional system in which the government would play a vigorous role in securing the liberty and well-being of a large and diverse population. They built a political system around a number of key elements, including debate and deliberation, divided powers competing with one another, regular order in the legislative process, and avenues to limit and punish corruption. America in recent years has struggled to adhere to each of these principles, leading to a crisis of governability and legitimacy. The roots of this problem are twofold. The first is a serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as polarized and vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a separation-of-powers governing system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. The second is the asymmetric character of the polarization. The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.

Urban Public HealthA Historical Perspective

Urban Health ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 169-178
Author(s):  
Richard Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Urban Health ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Historical Study ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Historical Perspectives ◽  
The Common ◽  
Eighteenth And Nineteenth Centuries

Historical perspectives on urban health focus mainly on the production of public health, on strategies and policies deployed by towns and cities that are authorized to act for the common good. This chapter gives a largely chronological perspective on public health developments, from medieval to early modern, and then to a consideration of the major shifts in public health that occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although in this chapter most attention is devoted to European trends, the colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia ensured networks of knowledge that were, by contemporary standards, quite quickly disseminated, though locally taken up at very variable rates. The historical study of public health is, therefore, an inherently worldwide one, with the important qualification that the pace of change and uptake of ideas was uneven.

scholarly journals When digital health meets digital capitalism, how many common goods are at stake?

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205395171881903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Sharon
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Wealth Creation ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Digital Capitalism ◽  
Orders Of Worth ◽  
The Common

In recent years, all major consumer technology corporations have moved into the domain of health research. This ‘Googlization of health research’ (‘GHR’) begs the question of how the common good will be served in this research. As critical data scholars contend, such phenomena must be situated within the political economy of digital capitalism in order to foreground the question of public interest and the common good. Here, trends like GHR are framed within a double, incommensurable logic, where private gain and economic value are pitted against public good and societal value. While helpful for highlighting the exploitative potential of digital capitalism, this framing is limiting, insofar as it acknowledges only one conception of the common good. This article uses the analytical framework of modes of justification developed by Boltanksi and Thévenot to identify a plurality of orders of worth and conceptualizations of the common good at work in GHR. Not just the ‘civic’ (doing good for society) and ‘market’ (enhancing wealth creation) orders, but also an ‘industrial’ (increasing efficiency), a ‘project’ (innovation and experimentation), and what I call a ‘vitalist’ (proliferating life) order. Using promotional material of GHR initiatives and preliminary interviews with participants in GHR projects, I ask what moral orientations guide different actors in GHR. Engaging seriously with these different conceptions of the common good is paramount. First, in order to critically evaluate them and explicate what is at stake in the move towards GHR, and ultimately, in order to develop viable governance solutions that ensure strong ‘civic’ components.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document