Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T14:59:44.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2015

GIUSEPPE SCHIAVONE ,
MATTEO MAMELI  and
GIOVANNI BONIOLO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the “deliberative turn” in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an “epistocratic” proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation.

Keywords

bioethicsdeliberative democracyparticipationepistocracy

Information

Type
Special Section: Bioethics and Information Technology
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 272 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

1. Abelson, J, Blacksher, EA, Li, KK, Boesveld, SE, Goold, SD. Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: Mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field. Journal of Public Deliberation 2013;9(1):4.Google Scholar

2. Brennan, J. The right to a competent electorate. The Philosophical Quarterly 2011;61(245):700–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Boniolo, G, Di Fiore, PP. Deliberative ethics in a biomedical institution: An example of integration between science and ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 2010;36(7):409–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. The participatory methodology outlined in this contribution is being deployed in a pilot online consultation, which will provide useful empirical information for further developments (available at http://bioeticadeliberativa.scienzainrete.it/ [last accessed 15 Dec 2014]).

5. See note 2, Brennan 2011.

6. See note 2, Brennan 2011, at 704.

7. Estlund, D. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. See note 7, Estlund 2009, at 33.

9. See note 2, Brennan 2011, at 717.

10. Daniels, N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008, at 169.Google Scholar

11. Stutzer, A, Frey, BS. Political participation and procedural utility: An empirical study. European Journal of Political Research 2006;45:391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Smith, G. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Wampler, B. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2007.Google Scholar

14. Ottonelli, V. I Principi Procedurali Della Democrazia. Bologna: Il Mulino; 2012.Google Scholar

15. Schumpeter, JA. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Routledge; 2003:269–83.Google Scholar

16. Most deliberative democrats do argue for some version of what is called “considered judgment,” but they generally trade this value off for inclusion in a way that, according to Brennan’s argument, might end up affecting the legitimacy of the decisions taken.

17. See note 2, Brennan 2011, at 714.

18. Roth, AE. Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2007;21(3):37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Bohman, J. Public Deliberation—Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.Google Scholar

20. Elster, J. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Dryzek, J.Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar

22. Gutmann, A, Thompson, D. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Boniolo, G. The Art of Deliberating: Democracy, Deliberation and the Life Sciences between History and Theory. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. See note 20, Elster 1998, at 8.

25. Parker, M.Deliberative bioethics. In: Ashcroft, R, Dawson, A, Draper, H, McMillan, JR, eds. Principles of Health Care Ethics. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2007:185–92.Google Scholar

26. Gutmann, A, Thompson, D.Deliberating about bioethics. The Hastings Center Report 1997;27(3):38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. People may be disenfranchised of some rights as a result of decisions taken in public forums from which they are excluded. However, (1) the output of such forums does not directly acquire the status of a binding law, (2) the fact that a woman enjoys her right to political participation means that she can make use of democratically available contestatory institutions/practices, (3) the decision reached by the forum is up for grabs and revisable (clearly only insofar as the extent to which this revisability is exercised does not disrupt the intelligibility of a polity’s legal framework), and, most importantly, (4) the legitimate reasons why the recommendations have been made are made available to everyone who is affected by the decisions informed by the recommendations.

28. See note 3, Boniolo, Di Fiore 2010, and note 23, Boniolo 2012.

29. Fung, A.Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review 2006;66(s1):67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. HFEA. Hybrids and Chimeras: A Report on the Findings of the Consultation; 2007. The public consultations carried out by the HFEA can be found here: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/122.html (last accessed 16 Nov 2013).

31. Fishkin, JS. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar

32. See note 12, Smith 2009, at 8–29.

33. Dahl, R.On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1998, at 37–8.Google Scholar

34. Pettit, P. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar