Advertisement

Ethical Frameworks

  • Ghislaine van ThielEmail author
Chapter
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Evidence about benefits and risks of medicines can guide the communication about risks and safe use of medicinal products—but not all the way. Ethical questions arise when science cannot produce conclusive answers to important questions or when there is a tension between scientific knowledge and other values, beliefs or perceptions. Examples are questions around new, inconclusive evidence about potential adverse effects of marketed medicines or regarding unintended effects of risk communication, such as shame, changes in therapy adherence or stigmatisation experienced by individuals using a certain medicine. Ensuring adequate and timely communication about risks and safe use of medicines therefore depends partly on ethical considerations, such as the duty of beneficence to patients and communities, the patient right to autonomy and collective responsibility. Health communication practices need to be based on a fair balance of relevant ethical norms and values. In this chapter, an ethical perspective on medicinal product risk communication will be introduced and four areas of ethical tension and the contexts of uncertainty and trust are discussed, which should be taken into account when planning or evaluating communication events.

References

  1. Adler D, Zlotnik Shaul R (2012) Disciplining bioethics: towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research. Account Res 19(3):187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez AAA (2001) How rational should bioethics be? The value of empirical approaches. Bioethics 15:501–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2007) The method in bioethics research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 17:277–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahri P, Rägo L (2019) CIOMS guide to vaccine safety communication: executive summary. Vaccine 37:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker DE (2009) Medication alert fatigue: the potential for compromised patient safety. Hosp Pharm 449(6):460–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauchner H, Fontanarosa PB (2013) Restoring confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 309:607–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2012) Principles of biomedical ethics, vol 51, 7th revised edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergstresser SM (2015) Health communication, public mistrust, and the politics of “rationality”. Am J Bioeth 15(4):57–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Estrada C et al (1999) Health literacy and numeracy. JAMA 282(6):527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ (2007) Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 31(Suppl 1):S47–S56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Floridi L (2010) Ethics after the information revolution. In: Floridi L (ed) The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floridi L (2013) The ethics of information. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Folker AP, Sandøe P (2008) Leaping “out of the doubt” - nutrition advice: values at stake in communicating scientific uncertainty to the public. Health Care Anal 16:176–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R (2013) Using analogies to communicate information about health risks. Appl Cogn Psychol 27:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia-Retamero R, Andrade A, Sharit J, Ruiz JG (2015) Is patient’s numeracy related to physical and mental health? Med Decis Mak 35:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin J, Honeycutt L (2009) When science goes public: from technical arguments to appeals to authority. Stud Commun Sci 9(2):19–30Google Scholar
  17. Guttman N, Salmon CT (2004) Guilt, fear, stigma and knowledge gaps: ethical issues in public health communication interventions. Bioethics 18(6):531–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall MA (2005) The importance of trust for ethics, law, and public policy. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 14:156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hernandez JF, van Thiel GJMW, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Raaijmakers JAM, Pieters T (2014) Restoring trust in the pharmaceutical sector on the basis of the SSRI case. Drug Discov Today 19:523–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Institute of Medicine (2010) Ethical issues in studying the safety of approved drugs: a letter report. The National Academies Press, Washington, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  21. Isaac T, Weissman JS, Davis RB, Massagli M, Cyrulik A, Sands DZ, Weingart SN (2009) Overrides of medication alerts in ambulatory care. Arch Intern Med 169(3):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ives J, Dunn M, Cribb A (2017) Theoretical perspectives: an introduction. In: Ives J, Dunn M, Cribb A (eds) Empirical bioethics. Theoretical and practical perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones Ringold D (2002) Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. J Consum Policy 25:27–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasperson RE (2015) Risk governance and the social amplification of risk: a commentary. In: Fra.Paleo U (ed) Risk governance. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 485–487Google Scholar
  25. Kuczewski M (1998) Casuistry and principlism: the convergence of method in biomedical ethics. Theor Med Bioeth 19:509–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Löfstedt R, Bouder F, Wardman J, Chakraborty S (2011) The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe. J Risk Res 14(4):409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marantz PR (1990) Blaming the victim: the negative consequence of preventive medicine. Am J Public Health 80:1186–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCormack L, Lefebvre RC, Bann C, Taylor O, Rausch P (2016) Consumer understanding, preferences, and responses to different versions of drug safety messages in the United States: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Saf 39:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minkler M (1999) Personal responsibility for health? A review of the arguments and the evidence at century’s end. Health Educ Behav 26(1):121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Molewijk AC, Siggelbout A, Otten W, Dupuis H, Kievit J (2004) Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Health Care Philos 7:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL (2014) Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133(4):e835–e842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sidgwick H (1962) The methods of ethics. Macmillan, London, p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Thiel, GJMW, Stolk PS (2013) Patient and citizen involvement in priority setting for pharmaceutical innovation. Background paper for the WHO Priority Medicines for Europe and the World 2013 report. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. van Thiel GJMW, van Delden JJM (2010) Reflective equilibrium as a normative empirical model. Ethical Perspect 17:183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vandekerckhove W (2018) Whistleblowing and information ethics: facilitation, entropy, and ecopoiesis. J Bus Ethics 152:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warburton P (2010) Numeracy and patient safety: the need for regular staff assessment. Nurs Stand 24(27):42–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Widdershoven G, Abma T, Molewijk B (2009) Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics 23:236–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary CareUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations