Schweda, Mark

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","93"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","History & Philosophy of the Life Sciences"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","43"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-01T09:57:24Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-01T09:57:24Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Technological approaches are increasingly discussed as a solution for the provision of support in activities of daily living as well as in medical and nursing care for older people. The development and implementation of such assistive technologies for eldercare raise manifold ethical, legal, and social questions. The discussion of these questions is influenced by theoretical perspectives and approaches from medical and nursing ethics, especially the principlist framework of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Tying in with previous criticism, the present contribution is taking these principles as a starting point and as a frame of reference to be critically re-examined. It thus aims to outline how existing ethical frameworks need to be extended or reconsidered to capture the ethical issues posed by technological developments regarding care for older people. In a first step, we provide a brief overview of assistive technologies in eldercare according to their purposes and functions. In the next step, we discuss how the questions and problems raised by new technologies in eldercare call for an expansion, re-interpretation, and revision of the principlist framework. We underline that the inclusion of ethical perspectives from engineering and computer science as well as a closer consideration of socio-political dimensions and fundamental anthropological and praxeological questions are needed."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s40656-021-00447-x"],["dc.identifier.pii","447"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/89834"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-469"],["dc.relation.eissn","1742-6316"],["dc.relation.issn","0391-9714"],["dc.title","Aging 4.0? Rethinking the ethical framing of technology-assisted eldercare"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","145"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Alzheimer's Disease"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","155"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","62"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Kögel, Anna"],["dc.contributor.author","Bartels, Claudia"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiltfang, Jens"],["dc.contributor.author","Schneider, Anja"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.editor","Grill, Joshua"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:44:11Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:44:11Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3233/JAD-170443"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1875-8908"],["dc.identifier.issn","1387-2877"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/78356"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","Prediction and Early Detection of Alzheimer’s Dementia: Professional Disclosure Practices and Ethical Attitudes"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","131"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medicine studies"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","145"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","3"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:53:53Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:53:53Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012-06-01"],["dc.description.abstract","PURPOSE: Although the term \"responsibility\" plays a central role in bioethics and public health, its meaning and implications are often unclear. This paper defends the importance of a more systematic conception of responsibility to improve moral philosophical as well as descriptive analysis. METHODS: We start with a formal analysis of the relational conception of responsibility and its meta-ethical presuppositions. In a brief historical overview, we compare global-collective, professional, personal, and social responsibility. The value of our analytical matrix is illustrated by sorting out the plurality of responsibility models in three cases (organ transplantation, advance directives, and genetic testing). RESULTS: Responsibility is a relational term involving at least seven relata. The analysis of the relata allows distinguishing between individual versus collective agency, retrospective versus prospective direction, and liability versus power relations. Various bioethical ambiguities result from insufficient, implicit, or inappropriate ascriptions of responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic conception of responsibility is an important tool for bioethical reflection. It allows an in-depth understanding and critique of moral claims on a meta-ethical level without presuming one particular normative approach. Considering the concept of responsibility can also help to complement the current bioethical focus on individual autonomy by including the perspectives of other actors, such as family members or social groups."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s12376-011-0070-8"],["dc.identifier.fs","593269"],["dc.identifier.pmid","22719799"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/8195"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/60521"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1876-4541"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","The Diversity of Responsibility: The Value of Explication and Pluralization."],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","921"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Human Neuroscience"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","8"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Ballenger, Jesse F."],["dc.contributor.author","Fox, Patrick J."],["dc.contributor.author","Halpern, Jodi"],["dc.contributor.author","Kramer, Joel H."],["dc.contributor.author","Micco, Guy"],["dc.contributor.author","Post, Stephen G."],["dc.contributor.author","Thompson, Charis"],["dc.contributor.author","Knight, Robert T."],["dc.contributor.author","Jagust, William J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:32:35Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:32:35Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","The development of a wide array of molecular and neuroscientific biornarkers can provide the possibility to visualize the course of Alzheimer's disease (AD) at early stages. Many of these biomarkers are aimed at detecting not only a preclinical, but also a pre-symptomatic state. They are supposed to facilitate clinical trials aiming at treatments that attack the disease at its earliest stage or even prevent it The increasing number of such biomarkers currently tested and now partly proposed for clinical implementation calls for critical reflection on their aims, social benefits, and risks. This position paper summarizes major challenges and responsibilities. Its focus is on the ethical and social problems involved in the organization and application of dementia research, as well as in healthcare provision from a cross national point of view. The paper is based on a discussion of leading dementia experts from neuroscience, neurology, social sciences, and bioethics in the United States and Europe. It thus reflects a notable consensus across various disciplines and national backgrounds. We intend to initiate a debate on the need for actions within the researchers' national and international communities."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2014"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fnhum.2014.00921"],["dc.identifier.isi","000345079900001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","25477802"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/11132"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/31782"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1662-5161"],["dc.relation.issn","1662-5161"],["dc.rights","CC BY 3.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0"],["dc.title","Before it is too late: professional responsibilities in late-onset Alzheimer's research and pre-symptomatic prediction"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","4"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:52:38Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:52:38Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: The increasing debate on financial incentives for organ donation raises concerns about a \"commodification of the human body\". Philosophical-ethical stances on this development depend on assumptions concerning the body and how people think about it. In our qualitative empirical study we analyze public attitudes towards organ donation in their specific relation to conceptions of the human body in four European countries (Cyprus, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden). This approach aims at a more context-sensitive picture of what \"commodification of the body\" can mean in concrete clinical decisions concerning organ donation. Results: We find that moral intuitions concerning organ donation are rooted in various conceptions of the human body and its relation to the self: a) the body as a mechanical object owned by the self, b) the body as a part of a higher order embodying the self, and c) the body as a hierarchy of organs constitutive of the self. Conclusion: The language of commodification is much too simple to capture what is at stake in everyday life intuitions about organ donation and organ sale. We discuss how the plurality of underlying body-self conceptions can be taken into account in the ethical debate, pointing out consequences for an anthropologically informed approach and for a liberal perspective."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1747-5341-4-4"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19226449"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5812"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/60246"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1747-5341"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","The \"spare parts person\"? Conceptions of the human body and their implications for public attitudes towards organ donation and organ sale."],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1129"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Social Science & Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1136"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","68"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:32:32Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:32:32Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Against the background of the increasing academic and political debate on financial incentives for organ donation, we conducted a qualitative investigation on the conditions under which European citizens would actually consider or refuse financial incentives for organ donation. Our paper combines an analysis of data that were collected in eight Focus Group discussions on transplantation medicine with lay people and patients from four European countries (Cyprus, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden) with a critical re-assessment of the dichotomy between gift and commodity in the recent political and academic discourse. We find that the distinction between living and post mortem donation on the one hand, and between different models of financial incentives on the other, plays a crucial role for the participants' values and ideas about organ donation. We discuss the significance of our results with particular respect to the central role of reciprocity and draw conclusions for the bioethical and biopolitical debate. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.026"],["dc.identifier.isi","000265003400020"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19162387"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6174"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/17363"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Pergamon-elsevier Science Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","0277-9536"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Public ideas and values concerning the commercialization of organ donation in four European countries"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","13"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","18"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Raz, Aviad E."],["dc.contributor.author","Silvers, Anita"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:27:17Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:27:17Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: End-of-life decision making constitutes a major challenge for bioethical deliberation and political governance in modern democracies: On the one hand, it touches upon fundamental convictions about life, death, and the human condition. On the other, it is deeply rooted in religious traditions and historical experiences and thus shows great socio-cultural diversity. The bioethical discussion of such cultural issues oscillates between liberal individualism and cultural stereotyping. Our paper confronts the bioethical expert discourse with public moral attitudes. Methods: The paper is based on a qualitative study comprising 12 focus group discussions with religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel (n = 82). Considering the respective socio-political and legal frameworks, the thematic analysis focuses on moral attitudes towards end-of-life decision making and explores the complex interplay between individual preferences, culture, and religion. Results: Our findings draw attention to the variety and complexity of cultural and religious aspects of end-of-life decision making. Although there is local consensus that goes beyond radical individualism, positions are not neatly matched with national cultures or religious denominations. Instead, the relevance of the specific situatedness of religious beliefs and cultural communities becomes visible: Their status and role in individual situations, for example, as consensual or conflicting on the level of personal perspectives, family relationships, or broader social contexts, e.g., as a majority or minority culture within a political system. Conclusions: As the group discussions indicate, there are no clear-cut positions anchored in \"nationality,\" \"culture,\" or \"religion.\" Instead, attitudes are personally decided on as part of a negotiated context representing the political, social and existential situatedness of the individual. Therefore, more complex theoretical and practical approaches to cultural diversity have to be developed."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12910-017-0170-4"],["dc.identifier.isi","000394290800001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","28212642"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/14265"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/43217"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","PUB_WoS_Import"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6939"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Beyond cultural stereotyping: views on end-of-life decision making among religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","308"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","317"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","17"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:14:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:14:15Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1017/S0963180108080377"],["dc.identifier.isi","000256286200008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","18495071"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/54084"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Cambridge Univ Press"],["dc.relation.issn","0963-1801"],["dc.title","Public moralities concerning donation and disposition of organs: Results from a cross-European study"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","251"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","251"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Wynne, Brian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2013-04-09T08:50:49Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T13:20:00Z"],["dc.date.available","2013-04-09T08:50:49Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T13:20:00Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.format.mimetype","application/pdf"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s11019-012-9393-9"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/8862"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91929"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Migrated from goescholar"],["dc.relation.eissn","1572-8633"],["dc.relation.iserratumof","/handle/2/26626"],["dc.relation.issn","1386-7423"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Erratum to: The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’—why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","erratum_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","473"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","8"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Medical Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","476"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","35"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:27:20Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:27:20Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","The debate over financial incentives and market models for organ procurement represents a key trend in recent bioethics. In this paper, we wish to reassess one of its central premises-the idea of organ shortage. While the problem is often presented as an objective statistical fact that can be taken for granted, we will take a closer look at the underlying framework expressed in the common rhetoric of \"scarcity', \"shortage' or \"unfulfilled demand'. On the basis of theoretical considerations as well as a socioempirical examination of public attitudes, we will argue that this rhetoric has an economic subtext that imbues the debate with normative premises that have far-reaching social and ethical consequences and need to be made explicit and discussed."],["dc.description.sponsorship","EU [SAS6-CT-2003-510238]; European Commission"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1136/jme.2008.027953"],["dc.identifier.isi","000268508700006"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19644004"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16184"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","B M J Publishing Group"],["dc.relation.issn","0306-6800"],["dc.title","\"One man's trash is another man's treasure': exploring economic and moral subtexts of the \"organ shortage' problem in public views on organ donation"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]