Beier, Katharina

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","342"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Medical Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","346"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","38"],["dc.contributor.author","Lenk, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:09:56Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:09:56Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.description.abstract","The human body and its parts are widely perceived as matters beyond commercial usage. This belief is codified in several national and European documents. This so-called 'no-property rule' is held to be the default position across the countries of the European Union. However, a closer look at the most pertinent national and European documents, and also current practices in the field, reveals a gradual model of commercialisation of human tissue. In particular, we will argue that the ban on commercialisation of body material is not as strict as it may appear at first sight, leaving room for the commercial practice of tissue procurement and transfer. We argue for more transparent information for patients and tissue donors, an intensified ethical debate on commercialisation practices, and a critical review of current normative principles."],["dc.description.sponsorship","European Union"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1136/jme.2010.038760"],["dc.identifier.isi","000304447500004"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21697294"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/9097"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/26386"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","B M J Publishing Group"],["dc.relation.issn","0306-6800"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Is the commercialisation of human tissue and body material forbidden in the countries of the European Union?"],["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","855"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","871"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","58"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiesemann, Claudia"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-10T08:13:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-10T08:13:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Human reproduction in the age of reprogenetics raises fundamental ethical and political questions. Critics of so-called liberal eugenics like Jürgen Habermas have sparked an ethical debate on whether selective genetic manipulation might undermine the natural basis of the moral self-conception and autonomy of future generations. Contrary to this perception, the authors of this article argue for a dialectic understanding of the moral challenges arising from human natality: Freedom and dependency, sociality and human embodiment, autonomy and relatedness likewise determine our human existence as moral beings. As an answer to these challenges, the authors develop a dialectic understanding of parenthood in the age of reprogenetics, thereby transcending present debates of modern reproductive medicine."],["dc.identifier.fs","576851"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6172"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/61272"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Die Dialektik der Elternschaft im Zeitalter der Reprogenetik"],["dc.title.alternative","Ein ethischer Dialog"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","633"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","652"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","40"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:48:00Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:48:00Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","Because it is often argued that surrogacy should not be treated as contractual, the question arises in which terms this practice might then be couched. In this article, I argue that a phenomenology of surrogacy centering on the notion of trust provides a description that is illuminating from the moral point of view. My thesis is that surrogacy establishes a complex and extended reproductive unit-the \"surrogacy triad\" consisting of the surrogate mother, the child, and the intending parents-whose constituents are bound together by mutual trustful commitments. Even though a trust-based approach does not provide an ultimate answer to whether surrogacy should be sanctioned or prohibited, it allows for at least some practical suggestions. In particular, I will argue that, under certain conditions, surrogacy is tenable within familial or other significant relationships, and I will stress the necessity of acknowledging the new relationships and moral commitments that result from this practice."],["dc.description.sponsorship","German VolkswagenStiftung [II/84654]"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1093/jmp/jhv024"],["dc.identifier.isi","000368260200002"],["dc.identifier.pmid","26449234"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/35220"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Oxford Univ Press Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","1744-5019"],["dc.relation.issn","0360-5310"],["dc.title","Surrogate Motherhood: A Trust-Based Approach"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","14"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-06-01T10:48:04Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-06-01T10:48:04Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Background The bioethical debates concerning living donation and surrogacy revolve around similar ethical questions and moral concepts. Nevertheless, the ethical discourses in both fields grew largely isolated from each other. Methods Based on a review of ethical, sociological and anthropological research this paper aims to link the ethical discourses on living kidney donation and surrogacy by providing a comparative analysis of the two practices’ relational dimension with regard to three aspects, i.e. the normative role of relational dynamics, social norms and gender roles, and reciprocity. Based on this analysis, we derive conclusions for the framing of living organ donation and surrogacy in ethical theory and practice. Results First, our analysis emphasizes the relevance of acknowledging the complex relational implications of living kidney donation and surrogacy. Underestimating this relational dimension may not only lead to individual crises but endanger existing as well as newly emerging familial relationships. Second, we point out differences in the normative assessment of social norms and gender roles in the ethical debates about living kidney donation and surrogacy. In particular, we show how different evaluations of altruism affect the understanding of autonomy in both contexts. In addition, we sensitize for biased perceptions of gender roles. Finally, we argue that challenges resulting from unresolved reciprocity are an issue in living kidney donation and surrogacy independent of whether the exchange of body parts or bodily services is framed as a gift or commercial exchange. By pointing out the limits of financial compensation, we stress the relevance of non-material, relational rewards as potential remedy."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13010-019-0080-9"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/16394"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/85819"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.eissn","1747-5341"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","An ethical comparison of living kidney donation and surrogacy: understanding the relational dimension"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","111"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Ethik in der Medizin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","118"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","34"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Simon, Alfred"],["dc.contributor.author","Schön, Michael P."],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-04-01T10:02:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-04-01T10:02:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.description.sponsorship","Georg-August-Universität Göttingen"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00481-022-00682-1"],["dc.identifier.pii","682"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/105866"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-530"],["dc.relation.eissn","1437-1618"],["dc.relation.issn","0935-7335"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Priorisierung von Beschäftigten einer medizinischen Einrichtung der Maximalversorgung bei der Impfung gegen COVID-19: Herausforderungen und Lösungsansätze"],["dc.title.alternative","Ein Diskussionsbeitrag aus der Praxis"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","153"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Ethik in der Medizin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","155"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","21"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:52:22Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:52:22Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00481-009-0003-1"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?goescholar/3549"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/60168"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.relation","info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/202204/EU//TISS.EU"],["dc.relation.euproject","Tiss.EU"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","First International Workshop of the Tiss.EU Project: Rights and Entitlements in Human Tissue and Cells"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","855"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","871"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","58"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiesemann, Claudia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:44:17Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:44:17Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Human reproduction in the age of reprogenetics raises fundamental ethical and political questions. Critics of so-called liberal eugenics like Jürgen Habermas have sparked an ethical debate on whether selective genetic manipulation might undermine the natural basis of the moral self-conception and autonomy of future generations. Contrary to this perception, the authors of this article argue for a dialectic understanding of the moral challenges arising from human natality: Freedom and dependency, sociality and human embodiment, autonomy and relatedness likewise determine our human existence as moral beings. As an answer to these challenges, the authors develop a dialectic understanding of parenthood in the age of reprogenetics, thereby transcending present debates of modern reproductive medicine."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1524/dzph.2010.0066"],["dc.identifier.gro","3145411"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/3118"],["dc.notes.intern","aufklaerung"],["dc.notes.status","public"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.publisher","Walter de Gruyter GmbH"],["dc.relation.issn","0012-1045"],["dc.subject","Habermas natality parenthood reproduction genetics"],["dc.title","Die Dialektik der Elternschaft im Zeitalter der Reprogenetik. Ein ethischer Dialog"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","90"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","19"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweda, Mark"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:51:13Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:51:13Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare such as health-related big data research (HBDR) implies that data from clinical routine, research and patient-reported data, but also non-medical social or demographic data, are aggregated and linked in order to optimize biomedical research. In this context, notions of patient participation and involvement are frequently invoked to legitimize this kind of research and improve its governance. The aim of this debate paper is to critically examine the specific use and ethical role of participatory concepts in the context of HBDR and data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare. Discussion We introduce basic conceptual distinctions for the understanding of participation by looking at relevant fields of application in politics, bioethics and medical research. Against this backdrop, we identify three paradigmatic participatory roles that patients/subjects are assigned within the field of HBDR: participants as providers of biomaterials and data, participants as administrators of their own research participation and participants as (co-)principal investigators. We further illustrate these roles by exemplary data-intensive research-initiatives. Our analysis of these initiatives and their respective participatory promises reveals specific ethical and practical shortcomings and challenges. Central problems affecting, amongst others, ethical and methodological research standards, as well as public trust in research, result from the negligence of essential political-ethical dimensions of genuine participation. Conclusions Based on the conceptual distinctions introduced, we formulate basic criteria for justified appeals to participatory approaches in HBDR and data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare in order to overcome these shortcomings. As we suggest, this is not only a matter of conceptual clarity, but a crucial requirement for maintaining ethical standards and trust in HBDR and related medical research."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12911-019-0799-7"],["dc.identifier.pmid","31023321"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/16075"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59899"],["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.title","Taking patient involvement seriously: a critical ethical analysis of participatory approaches in data-intensive medical research"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","411"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","422"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","19"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Jordan, Isabella"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiesemann, Claudia"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-10-16T10:54:29Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-10-16T10:54:29Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Bioethicists tend to focus on the individual as the relevant moral subject. Yet, in highly complex and socially differentiated healthcare systems a number of social groups, each committed to a common cause, are involved in medical decisions and sometimes even try to influence bioethical discourses according to their own agenda. We argue that the significance of these collective actors is unjustifiably neglected in bioethics. The growing influence of collective actors in the fields of biopolitics and bioethics leads us to pursue the question as to how collective moral claims can be characterized and justified. We pay particular attention to elaborating the circumstances under which collective actors can claim ‘collective agency.’ Specifically, we develop four normative-practical criteria for collective agency in order to determine the conditions that must be given to reasonably speak of ‘collective autonomy’. For this purpose, we analyze patient organizations and families, which represent two quite different kinds of groups and can both be conceived as collective actors of high relevance for bioethical practice. Finally, we discuss some practical implications and explain why the existence of a shared practice of trust is of immediate normative relevance in this respect."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s11019-016-9695-4"],["dc.identifier.gro","3146751"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/9426"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1386-7423"],["dc.title","Understanding collective agency in bioethics"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Ethik in der Medizin"],["dc.contributor.author","Beier, Katharina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-01T09:58:54Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-01T09:58:54Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00481-021-00661-y"],["dc.identifier.pii","661"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/90170"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-469"],["dc.relation.eissn","1437-1618"],["dc.relation.issn","0935-7335"],["dc.title","Barbara Bleisch, Andrea Büchler (2020) Kinder wollen. Über Autonomie und Verantwortung"],["dc.title.alternative","Carl Hanser Verlag, München, 303 Seiten, 22,00 €, ISBN 978-3-446-26575-2"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]