Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deliberative Processes in Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 16))

Abstract

This chapter discusses the use of deliberative processes in policy making about bioethics, drawing more broadly on deliberative democracy theory and health policy. We discuss who runs deliberative processes and why, but are particularly concerned with what conditions are needed for deliberative processes to be successful. We note uncertainties and tensions that may be inevitable in meeting these conditions. Fairness and accountability emerge as themes in which these conditions can be grouped. For accountability in particular, understanding the policy context and motives for deliberative processes are essential to their evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abelson, J. 2003. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy 66(1): 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abelson, J., M. Giacomini, P. Lehoux, and F.-P. Gauvin. 2007. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy 82(1): 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, P. 2002. Public health: Decision-making when science is ambiguous. Science 295(5561): 1839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J. 1977. Current developments in the theory of social choice. Social Research 44(4): 607–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernert, C. 1983. The career of causal analysis in American sociology. The British Journal of Sociology 34(2): 230–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, P., and G. Davis. 2002. Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration 61(1): 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, C., A. Richardson, and W. Sykes. 1995. Consulting the public about health service priorities. British Medical Journal 311(7013): 1155–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, R.A., A. Laupacis, and D. Martin. 2008. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 179(1): 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. 2008. Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science Technology Human Values 33(2): 155–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. 1989. Sociology: Proscience or antiscience? American Sociological Review 54(1): 124–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contandriopoulos, D. 2004. A sociological perspective on public participation in health care. Social Science and Medicine 58(2): 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. 2000. Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal 321(7272): 1300–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1997. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(4): 303–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, M., F. Cook, and L. Jacobs. 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7(1): 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J., and H.G. Welch. 1991. Priority setting: Lessons from Oregon. The Lancet 337(8746): 891–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., R. Cookson, and B. Ferguson. 1999. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. British Medical Journal 318(7188): 916–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, C. 2007. NICE faces legal challenge over Alzheimer’s drug. British Medical Journal 334(7595): 654–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, D. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science Technology Human Values 15(2): 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J., D. Martin, and P. Singer. 2005. Priority setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences. Social Science & Medicine 61(11): 2355–2362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe, J.H. 2001. Causation, statistics, and sociology. European Sociological Review 17(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 1997. What sort of political equality does deliberative democracy require? In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 279–320, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, F. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science Technology Human Values 18(3): 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaghan, J. 1999. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 49(1–2): 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaghan, J., B. New, and E. Mitchell. 1996. Setting priorities: Is there a role for citizens’ juries? British Medical Journal 312(7046): 1591–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litva, A. 2002. “The public is too subjective”: Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science and Medicine 54(12): 1825–1837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., J. Abelson, and P. Singer. 2002. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 7(4): 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milewa, T. 2006. Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK. Social Science and Medicine 63(12): 3102–3112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitton, C., N. Smith, S. Peacock, B. Evoy, and J. Abelson. 2009. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy 91(3): 219–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, M. 2005. Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior 27(1): 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, J. 1992. Combining deliberation and fair representation in community health decisions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140(5): 1965–1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J., M. Barnes, H. Sullivan, and A. Knops. 2004. Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy 33(02): 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty, K., and M. Burgess. 2009. Engaging the public on biobanks: Outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics 12(4): 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, M., and V. Entwistle. 2004. Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded. Health Policy 70(3): 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, S., C. Mitton, A. Bate, B. McCoy, and C. Donaldson. 2009. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy 92(2–3): 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pötter, U., and H.-P. Blossfeld. 2001. Causal inference from series of events. European Sociological Review 17(1): 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M., and M. Colin. 2009. Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science Technology Society 29(4): 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quennell, P. 2003. Getting a word in edgeways? Patient group participation in the appraisal process of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 8(1): 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1999. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. 1995. The pursuit of fair and competent citizen participation. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, ed. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 339–367, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology Human Values 25(1): 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology Human Values 29(4): 512–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology Human Values 30(2): 251–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabik, L., and R. Lie. 2008. Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health 7(1): 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, S., and C. Chess. 2003. Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Analysis 23(2): 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, C., and A. Easey. 2008. First successful legal challenge to NICE guidance. Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice 3(11): 692–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D., P. Shamdasani, and D. Rook. 2007. Focus groups: Theory and practice (Applied social research methods). London: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbensel, T. 2002. Interpreting public input into priority-setting: the role of mediating institutions. Health Policy 62(2): 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler, T. 1995. “Right” discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, ed. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as part of Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-making and Liberal Democracy” (DP0556068).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Cobi Smith

  2. Gene Rowe Evaluations, Norwich, UK

    Gene Rowe

Authors
  1. Cobi Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gene Rowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cobi Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Humanities, UNSW Australia, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Susan Dodds

  2. School of Humanities, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Rachel A. Ankeny

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, C., Rowe, G. (2016). Deliberative Processes in Practice. In: Dodds, S., Ankeny, R. (eds) Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation