Schicktanz, Silke

[["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.artnumber","380"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Genetics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","10"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schaper, Manuel"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:51:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:51:15Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","The interpretation of genetic information in clinical settings raises moral issues about adequate risk communication and individual responsibility about one’s health behavior. However, it is not well-known what role numeric probabilities and/or the conception of disease and genetics play in the lay understanding of predictive genetic diagnostics. This is an important question because lay understanding of genetic risk information might have particular implications for self-responsibility of the patients. Aim: Analysis of lay attitudes and risk perceptions of German lay people on genetic testing with a special focus on how they deal with the numerical information. Methods: We conducted and analyzed seven focus group discussions (FG) with lay people (n = 43). Results: Our participants showed a positive attitude toward predictive genetic testing. We identified four main topics: (1) Anumeric risk instead of statistical information; (2) Treatment options as a factor for risk evaluation; (3) Epistemic and aleatory uncertainty as moral criticism; (4) Ambivalence as a sign of uncertainty. Conclusion: For lay people, risk information, including the statistical numeric part, is perceived as highly normatively charged, often as an emotionally significant threat. It seems necessary to provide lay people with a deeper understanding of risk information and of the limitations of genetic knowledge with respect to one’s own health responsibility."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fgene.2019.00380"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/16087"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59909"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-8021"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","How Uncertainty Influences Lay People’s Attitudes and Risk Perceptions Concerning Predictive Genetic Testing and Risk Communication"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","21"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","32"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","4"],["dc.contributor.author","Hashiloni-Dolev, Yael"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:43:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:43:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","The scholarly discussion of posthumous reproduction (PHR) focuses on informed consent and the welfare of the future child, for the most part overlooking cultural differences between societies. Based on a cross-cultural comparison of legal and regulatory documents, analysis of pivotal cases and study of scholarly and media discussions in Israel and Germany, this paper analyses the relevant ethical and policy issues, and questions how cultural differences shape the practice of PHR. The findings challenge the common classifications of PHR by highlighting the gender perspective and adding brain-dead pregnant women to the debate. Based on this study’s findings, four neglected cultural factors affecting social attitudes towards PHR are identified: (i) the relationship between the pregnant woman and her future child; (ii) what constitutes the beginning of life; (iii) what constitutes dying; and (iv) the social agent(s) seeking to have the future child. The paper argues that PHR can be better understood by adding the gender and margins-of-life perspectives, and that future ethical and practical discussions of this issue could benefit from the criteria emerging from this cross-cultural analysis."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.rbms.2017.03.003"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/14569"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58912"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","A cross-cultural analysis of posthumous reproduction: The significance of the gender and margins-of-life perspectives"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","81"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","10"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","5"],["dc.contributor.author","Werner, Perla"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:45:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:45:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Healthy aging is the development and maintenance of optimal cognitive, social and physical well-being, and function in older adults. Preventing or minimizing disease is one of the main ways of achieving healthy aging. Dementia is one of the most prevalent and life-changing diseases of old age. Thus, dementia prevention research is defined as one of the main priorities worldwide. However, conducting research with persons who lack the capacity to give consent is a major ethical issue. Objective: Our study attempts to explore if and how advance research directives (ARDs) may be used as a future tool to deal with the ethical and practical issues in dementia research. Method: We conducted focus groups and in-depth interviews with German and Israeli professional stakeholders from the fields of gerontology, ethics, medical law, psychiatry, neurology and policy advice (n = 16), and analyzed the main topics discussed regarding cross-national similarities and controversies within the groups, as well as across the two national contexts. Results: While both countries are in the midst of a developmental process and have recognized the importance and need for ARD as a tool for expanding healthy aging, Germany is in a more advanced stage than Israel because of the EU regulation process, which indicates the influence of international harmonization on these research-related ethical issues. Consensual themes within the qualitative material were identified: the need for a broader debate on ARD, the ethical importance of autonomy and risk–benefit assessment for ARD implementation, the role of the proxy and the need for the differentiation of types of dementia research. Controversies and dilemmas aroused around themes such as the current role of IRBs in each country, the need for limits, and how to guaranty safeguarding and control. Discussion: Implementing a new tool is a step-by-step procedure requiring a thorough understanding of the current state of knowledge as well as of the challenges and hurdles ahead. As long as improving quality of life and promoting autonomy continue to be core elements in the process of healthy aging, efforts to advance knowledge and solve dilemmas associated with the implementation of ARD is of the utmost importance."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fmed.2018.00081"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15085"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59197"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","2296-858X"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Practical and Ethical Aspects of Advance Research Directives for Research on Healthy Aging: German and Israeli Professionals’ Perspectives"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","183"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Ethik in der Medizin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","186"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","21"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schildmann, Jan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:52:23Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:52:23Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00481-009-0026-7"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?goescholar/3552"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/60170"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Medizinethik und Empirie – Standortbestimmungen eines spannungsreichen Verhältnisses"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","30"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","12"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","2"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-10T08:13:02Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-10T08:13:02Z"],["dc.date.issued","2007"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Within the context of applied bioethical reasoning, various conceptions of the human body are focused upon by the author in relation to normative notions of autonomy. Results: The author begins by descriptively exploring some main positions in bioethics from which the \"body\" is conceptualized. Such positions conflict: the body is that which is constitutive of the individual's experience and perception, or it is conceived of materially or mechanistically; or as a constructed locus, always historically and culturally transformed. The author goes on to suggest a methodological approach that dialectically considers embodiment from four different perspectives: as bodily self-determination, as respect for the bodily unavailability of the other, as care for bodily individuality; and lastly, as acknowledgement of bodily-constituted communities. These four perspectives encompass autonomy in two of its main interpretations: as the capability of a person to act independent of external forces, and as the moral ideal of pursuing individual wishes by means of role distance, self-limitation and universalization. Various bioethical cases are utilized to show how the four perspectives on the body can complement one another. Conclusion: The way we consider the body matters. The author's dialectical method allows a premise-critical identification and exploration of bioethical problems concerning the body. The method is potentially applicable to other bioethical problems."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1747-5341-2-30"],["dc.identifier.fs","193931"],["dc.identifier.ppn","559657161"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/4377"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/61106"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1747-5341"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Why the way we consider the body matters Reflections on four bioethical perspectives on the human body"],["dc.title.alternative","Research"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]