The Experts below are selected from a list of 15078 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Norman Daniels - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
accountability for reasonableness and priority setting in health
2016Co-Authors: Norman DanielsAbstract:Priority setting, whether in health or investments in other goods, is required whenever a society must provide for the needs and welfare of its population and resources are limited, which is always. Since health is only one good among many that a society must provide, however important people claim it is, resources for it are always limited. Yet disagreement about resource allocation is pervasive. Arguably, this means that a form of procedural justice must be used to arrive at priority setting commitments. Although health technology assessment (HTA) gives important advice, standard forms of it underdetermine choices about priority setting. If HTA is embedded in a fair, Deliberative Process, one that meets the conditions involved in accountability for reasonableness, it can enhance the legitimacy and fairness of its recommendations.
-
health technology assessment Deliberative Process and ethically contested issues
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2016Co-Authors: Norman Daniels, Gert Jan Van Der WiltAbstract:Healthcare technology assessment (HTA) aims to support decisions as to which technologies should be used in which situations to optimize value. Because such decisions will create winners and losers, they are bound to be controversial. HTA, then, faces a dilemma: should it stay away from such controversies, remaining a source of incomplete advice and risking an important kind of marginalization, or should it enter the controversy? The question is a challenging one, because we lack agreement on principles that are fine grained enough to tell us what choices we should make. In this study, we will argue that HTA should take a stand on ethical issues raised by the technology that is being investigated. To do so, we propose adding a form of procedural justice to HTA to arrive at decisions that the public can regard as legitimate and fair. A fair Process involves deliberation about the reasons, evidence, and rationales that are considered relevant to meeting population-health needs fairly. One important way to make sure that there is real deliberation about relevant reasons is to include a range of stakeholders in the Deliberative Process. To illustrate how such deliberation might work, we use the case of cochlear implants for deaf children.
-
role of the courts in the progressive realization of the right to health between the threat and the promise of judicialization in mexico
Health Systems and Reform, 2015Co-Authors: Norman Daniels, Sofia Charvel, Adriane H Gelpi, Thalia Porteny, Julian UrrutiaAbstract:Abstract—A moral right to health or health care, given reasonable resource constraints, implies a reasonable array of services, as determined by a fair Deliberative Process. Such a right can be embodied in a constitution where it becomes a legal right with similar entitlements. What is the role of the courts in deciding what these entitlements are? The threat of “judicialization” is that the courts may overreach their ability if they attempt to carry out this task; the promise of judicialization is that the courts can do better than health systems have done at determining such entitlements. We propose a middle ground that requires the health system to develop a fair, Deliberative Process for determining how to achieve the progressive realization of the same right to health or health care and that also requires the courts to develop the capacity to assess whether the Deliberative Process in the health system is fair.
-
Process is the point justice and human rights priority setting and fair Deliberative Process
American Journal of Public Health, 2008Co-Authors: Sofia Gruskin, Norman DanielsAbstract:Most people responsible for setting priorities in health have considerable expertise relevant to deciding how to use resources effectively and the kinds of improvements that should be emphasized. Most are also concerned with distributing improvements equitably. Accordingly, they often invoke human rights or principles of distributive justice to legitimize choices that create winners and losers. We propose an approach that draws on the strengths of both perspectives as a way to add legitimacy to efforts to set priorities in health. Our proposal provides a Process for setting priorities but is not a formula or an algorithm for generating particular priorities. We propose an approach that would do away with the Process through which priorities are set and decisions made, and suggest the value of a focus on the Process of legitimizing these decisions.
Philip Shapira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation towards a framework for constructive sustainability assessment
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2019Co-Authors: Nicholas E Matthews, Philip Shapira, Laurence StamfordAbstract:Abstract Emerging technologies are increasingly promoted on the promise of tackling the grand challenge of sustainability. A range of assessment and governance approaches seek to evaluate these claims, but these tend to be applied disparately and lack widespread operationalisation. They also face specific challenges, such as high levels of uncertainty, when it comes to emerging technologies. Building and reflecting on both theory and practice, this article develops a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment (CSA) that enables the application of sustainability assessments to emerging technologies as part of a broader Deliberative approach. In order to achieve this, we discuss and critique current approaches to analytical sustainability assessment and review Deliberative social science governance frameworks. We then develop the conceptual basis of CSA - blending life-cycle thinking with principles of responsible research and innovation. This results in four design principles – transdisciplinarity, opening-up, exploring uncertainty and anticipation – that can be followed when applying sustainability assessments to emerging technologies. Finally, we discuss the practical implementation of the framework through a three-step Process to (a) formulate the sustainability assessment in collaboration with stakeholders, (b) evaluate potential sustainability implications using methods such as anticipatory life-cycle assessment and (c) interpret and explore the results as part of a Deliberative Process. Through this, CSA facilitates a much-needed transdisciplinary response to enable the governance of emerging technologies towards sustainability. The framework will be of interest to scientists, engineers, and policy-makers working with emerging technologies that have sustainability as an explicit or implicit motivator.
Peggy Hiller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the revised apta code of ethics for the physical therapist and standards of ethical conduct for the physical therapist assistant theory purpose Process and significance
Physical Therapy, 2010Co-Authors: Laura Lee Swisher, Peggy HillerAbstract:Introduction In June 2009, the House of Delegates (HOD) of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) passed a major revision of the APTA Code of Ethics for physical therapists and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for the Physical Therapist Assistant . The revised documents will be effective July 1, 2010. Purpose The purposes of this article are: (1) to provide a historical, professional, and theoretical context for this important revision; (2) to describe the 4-year revision Process; (3) to examine major features of the documents; and (4) to discuss the significance of the revisions from the perspective of the maturation of physical therapy as a doctoring profession. Process of Revision The Process for revision is delineated within the context of history and the Bylaws of APTA. Format, Structure, and Content of Revised Core Ethics Documents The revised documents represent a significant change in format, level of detail, and scope of application. Previous APTA Codes of Ethics and Standards of Ethical Conduct for the Physical Therapist Assistant have delineated very broad general principles, with specific obligations spelled out in the Ethics and Judicial Committee's Guide for Professional Conduct and Guide for Conduct of the Physical Therapist Assistant. In contrast to the current documents, the revised documents address all 5 roles of the physical therapist, delineate ethical obligations in organizational and business contexts, and align with the tenets of Vision 2020. Significance The significance of this revision is discussed within historical parameters, the implications for physical therapists and physical therapist assistants, the maturation of the profession, societal accountability and moral community, potential regulatory implications, and the inclusive and Deliberative Process of moral dialogue by which changes were developed, revised, and approved.
Nicholas E Matthews - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation towards a framework for constructive sustainability assessment
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2019Co-Authors: Nicholas E Matthews, Philip Shapira, Laurence StamfordAbstract:Abstract Emerging technologies are increasingly promoted on the promise of tackling the grand challenge of sustainability. A range of assessment and governance approaches seek to evaluate these claims, but these tend to be applied disparately and lack widespread operationalisation. They also face specific challenges, such as high levels of uncertainty, when it comes to emerging technologies. Building and reflecting on both theory and practice, this article develops a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment (CSA) that enables the application of sustainability assessments to emerging technologies as part of a broader Deliberative approach. In order to achieve this, we discuss and critique current approaches to analytical sustainability assessment and review Deliberative social science governance frameworks. We then develop the conceptual basis of CSA - blending life-cycle thinking with principles of responsible research and innovation. This results in four design principles – transdisciplinarity, opening-up, exploring uncertainty and anticipation – that can be followed when applying sustainability assessments to emerging technologies. Finally, we discuss the practical implementation of the framework through a three-step Process to (a) formulate the sustainability assessment in collaboration with stakeholders, (b) evaluate potential sustainability implications using methods such as anticipatory life-cycle assessment and (c) interpret and explore the results as part of a Deliberative Process. Through this, CSA facilitates a much-needed transdisciplinary response to enable the governance of emerging technologies towards sustainability. The framework will be of interest to scientists, engineers, and policy-makers working with emerging technologies that have sustainability as an explicit or implicit motivator.
Sofia Gruskin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Process is the point justice and human rights priority setting and fair Deliberative Process
American Journal of Public Health, 2008Co-Authors: Sofia Gruskin, Norman DanielsAbstract:Most people responsible for setting priorities in health have considerable expertise relevant to deciding how to use resources effectively and the kinds of improvements that should be emphasized. Most are also concerned with distributing improvements equitably. Accordingly, they often invoke human rights or principles of distributive justice to legitimize choices that create winners and losers. We propose an approach that draws on the strengths of both perspectives as a way to add legitimacy to efforts to set priorities in health. Our proposal provides a Process for setting priorities but is not a formula or an algorithm for generating particular priorities. We propose an approach that would do away with the Process through which priorities are set and decisions made, and suggest the value of a focus on the Process of legitimizing these decisions.