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.

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.

scholarly journals A Patriot for Whom? The Afterlives of Bolingbroke's Patriot King

1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Armitage
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Samuel Johnson ◽  
British History ◽  
Half Century ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oppositional Politics

The transformation of patriotism into nationalism has become one of the accepted grand narratives of eighteenth-century British history. From its first appearance in English in the 1720s, “patriotism” as a political slogan expressed devotion to the common good of the patria and hostility to sectional interests and became a staple of oppositional politics. Though it was attacked by ministerialist writers, it was a liability only for those like the elder Pitt, whose attachment to patriotism when in opposition was not matched by his behavior when in government. However, the Wilkesite agitations and the debate over the American War decisively tainted patriotism with the whiff of factious reformism, and it was in just this context, in 1775, that Dr. Samuel Johnson famously redefined patriotism as “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” In the following half century, both radicals and loyalists fought over the appropriation of patriotism: the radicals to rescue it from the contempt into which it had fallen in the 1770s, the loyalists and the government to harness its potent discourse of national duty for the cause of monarchical revivalism and aggressive anti-Gallicanism. It is now generally agreed that the conservatives won, as the oppositional language of the early and mid-eighteenth century was thereby transformed into “an officially constructed patriotism which stressed attachment to the monarchy, the importance of empire, the value of military and naval achievement, and the desirability of strong, stable government by a virtuous, able and authentically British elite.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document