Schicktanz, Silke

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","363"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medicine Health Care and Philosophy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","369"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","13"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Raz, Aviad E."],["dc.contributor.author","Shalev, Carmel"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:37:41Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:37:41Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","The moral discourse surrounding end-of-life (EoL) decisions is highly complex, and a comparison of Germany and Israel can highlight the impact of cultural factors. The comparison shows interesting differences in how patient's autonomy and doctor's duties are morally and legally related to each other with respect to the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment in EoL situations. Taking the statements of two national expert ethics committees on EoL in Israel and Germany (and their legal outcome) as an example of this discourse, we describe the similarity of their recommendations and then focus on the differences, including the balancing of ethical principles, what is identified as a problem, what social role professionals play, and the influence of history and religion. The comparison seems to show that Israel is more restrictive in relation to Germany, in contrast with previous bioethical studies in the context of the moral and legal discourse regarding the beginning of life, in which Germany was characterized as far more restrictive. We reflect on the ambivalence of the cultural reasons for this difference and its expression in various dissenting views on passive euthanasia and advance directives, and conclude with a comment on the difficulty in classifying either stance as more or less restrictive."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s11019-010-9262-3"],["dc.identifier.isi","000282514000009"],["dc.identifier.pmid","20680469"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/7629"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/18596"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.relation.issn","1386-7423"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","The cultural context of patient's autonomy and doctor's duty: passive euthanasia and advance directives in 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.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","433"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medicine Health Care and Philosophy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","442"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Raz, Aviad E."],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:22:58Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:22:58Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","The professional and institutional responsibility for handling genetic knowledge is well discussed; less attention has been paid to how lay people and particularly people who are affected by genetic diseases perceive and frame such responsibilities. In this exploratory study we qualitatively examine the attitudes of lay people, patients and relatives of patients in Germany and Israel towards genetic testing. These attitudes are further examined in the national context of Germany and Israel, which represent opposite regulatory approaches and bioethical debates concerning genetic testing. Three major themes of responsibility emerged from the inter-group and cross-cultural comparison: self-responsibility, responsibility for kin, and responsibility of society towards its members. National contrast was apparent in the moral reasoning of lay respondents concerning, for example, the right not to know versus the duty to know (self-responsibility) and the moral conflict concerning informing kin versus the moral duty to inform (responsibility for kin). Attitudes of respondents affected by genetic diseases were, however, rather similar in both countries. We conclude by discussing how moral discourses of responsibility are embedded within cultural (national, religious) as well as phenomenological (being affected) narratives, and the role of public engagement in bioethical discourse."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s11019-009-9215-x"],["dc.identifier.isi","000272270400008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19629747"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?goescholar/4162"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/56089"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.relation.issn","1572-8633"],["dc.relation.issn","1386-7423"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in 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"]]