@article{Ranisch2021, author = {Ranisch, Robert}, title = {Consultation with Doctor Twitter}, series = {The American journal of bioethics : ajob}, volume = {21}, journal = {The American journal of bioethics : ajob}, number = {7}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Philadelphia, Pa.}, issn = {1526-5161}, doi = {10.1080/15265161.2021.1926595}, pages = {24 -- 25}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{BurmeisterIllerRanischetal.2021, author = {Burmeister, Christiane and Iller, Ariane and Ranisch, Robert and Brand, Cordula and Staib, Tobias and M{\"u}ller, Uta}, title = {Jenseits der Klinik}, series = {Ethik in der Medizin : official journal of the German Academy of Ethics in the Medicine}, volume = {33}, journal = {Ethik in der Medizin : official journal of the German Academy of Ethics in the Medicine}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin ; Heidelberg}, issn = {0935-7335}, doi = {10.1007/s00481-021-00634-1}, pages = {275 -- 292}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Definition of the problem Medical and nursing care often takes place within complex organizational structures that comprise numerous facilities at numerous locations. We introduce an interactive ethical concept, designed in cooperation with the diaconal foundation BruderhausDiakonie Reutlingen and the International Centre for Ethics in Science, University of Tubingen, to address the particular needs of such organizations. Arguments Therefore we portray the interactive Nijmegen Model which combines an ethics committee located at the management level and situational ethical case deliberations on the ward in order to bring together two indispensable ways of ethical reflection in organizations: "top-down"/"bottom-up". We illustrate the challenges of implementing the said model into the organizational construction of the BruderhausDiakonie and how to address these by means of conception and implementation. Conclusion Considering the implementational challenges that we encountered, the Nijmegen Model needs to be enhanced by introducing a link between the committee and the case deliberations. We delineate the basic elements and the requirements for such a position while reporting our initial practical experience with this model.}, language = {de} } @article{BurmeisterRanischBrandetal.2021, author = {Burmeister, Christiane and Ranisch, Robert and Brand, Cordula and M{\"u}ller, Uta}, title = {Organisationsethik in Einrichtungen des Gesundheitswesens}, series = {Ethik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie f{\"u}r Ethik in der Medizin}, volume = {33}, journal = {Ethik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie f{\"u}r Ethik in der Medizin}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin ; Heidelberg}, issn = {0935-7335}, doi = {10.1007/s00481-021-00639-w}, pages = {153 -- 158}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{AlmeidaRanisch2022, author = {Almeida, Mara and Ranisch, Robert}, title = {Beyond safety: mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions}, series = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, volume = {9}, journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {London}, issn = {2662-9992}, doi = {10.1057/s41599-022-01147-y}, pages = {14}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Genetic engineering has provided humans the ability to transform organisms by direct manipulation of genomes within a broad range of applications including agriculture (e.g., GM crops), and the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., insulin production). Developments within the last 10 years have produced new tools for genome editing (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9) that can achieve much greater precision than previous forms of genetic engineering. Moreover, these tools could offer the potential for interventions on humans and for both clinical and non-clinical purposes, resulting in a broad scope of applicability. However, their promising abilities and potential uses (including their applicability in humans for either somatic or heritable genome editing interventions) greatly increase their potential societal impacts and, as such, have brought an urgency to ethical and regulatory discussions about the application of such technology in our society. In this article, we explore different arguments (pragmatic, sociopolitical and categorical) that have been made in support of or in opposition to the new technologies of genome editing and their impact on the debate of the permissibility or otherwise of human heritable genome editing interventions in the future. For this purpose, reference is made to discussions on genetic engineering that have taken place in the field of bioethics since the 1980s. Our analysis shows that the dominance of categorical arguments has been reversed in favour of pragmatic arguments such as safety concerns. However, when it comes to involving the public in ethical discourse, we consider it crucial widening the debate beyond such pragmatic considerations. In this article, we explore some of the key categorical as well sociopolitical considerations raised by the potential uses of heritable genome editing interventions, as these considerations underline many of the societal concerns and values crucial for public engagement. We also highlight how pragmatic considerations, despite their increasing importance in the work of recent authoritative sources, are unlikely to be the result of progress on outstanding categorical issues, but rather reflect the limited progress on these aspects and/or pressures in regulating the use of the technology.}, language = {en} } @article{WetzelKochPreiseretal.2022, author = {Wetzel, Anna-Jasmin and Koch, Roland and Preiser, Christine and M{\"u}ller, Regina and Klemmt, Malte and Ranisch, Robert and Ehni, Hans-J{\"o}rg and Wiesing, Urban and Rieger, Monika A. and Henking, Tanja and Joos, Stefanie}, title = {Ethical, legal, and social implications of symptom checker Apps in primary Health Care (CHECK.APP)}, series = {JMIR Research Protocols}, volume = {11}, journal = {JMIR Research Protocols}, number = {5}, publisher = {JMIR Research Protocols}, address = {Toronto}, issn = {1929-0748}, doi = {10.2196/34026}, pages = {11}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background: Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are accessible tools that provide early symptom assessment for users. The ethical, legal, and social implications of SCAs and their impact on the patient-physician relationship, the health care providers, and the health care system have sparsely been examined. This study protocol describes an approach to investigate the possible impacts and implications of SCAs on different levels of health care provision. It considers the perspectives of the users, nonusers, general practitioners (GPs), and health care experts. Objective: We aim to assess a comprehensive overview of the use of SCAs and address problematic issues, if any. The primary outcomes of this study are empirically informed multi-perspective recommendations for different stakeholders on the ethical, legal, and social implications of SCAs. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used in several overlapping and interconnected study phases. In study phase 1, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted to assess the ethical, legal, social, and systemic impacts of SCAs. Study phase 2 comprises a survey that will be analyzed with a logistic regression. It aims to assess the user degree of SCAs in Germany as well as the predictors for SCA usage. Study phase 3 will investigate self-observational diaries and user interviews, which will be analyzed as integrated cases to assess user perspectives, usage pattern, and arising problems. Study phase 4 will comprise GP interviews to assess their experiences, perspectives, self-image, and concepts and will be analyzed with the basic procedure by Kruse. Moreover, interviews with health care experts will be conducted in study phase 3 and will be analyzed by using the reflexive thematical analysis approach of Braun and Clark. Results: Study phase 1 will be completed in November 2021. We expect the results of study phase 2 in December 2021 and February 2022. In study phase 3, interviews are currently being conducted. The final study endpoint will be in February 2023. Conclusions: The possible ethical, legal, social, and systemic impacts of a widespread use of SCAs that affect stakeholders and stakeholder groups on different levels of health care will be identified. The proposed methodological approach provides a multifaceted and diverse empirical basis for a broad discussion on these implications.}, language = {en} }