An ethical analysis of policy dialogues.

BACKGROUND: A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated. METHODS: We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review. RESULTS: We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

From General Principles to Procedural Values: Responsible Digital Health Meets Public Health Ethics.

Most existing work in digital ethics is modeled on the "principlist" approach to medical ethics, seeking to articulate a small set of general principles to guide ethical decision-making. Critics have highlighted several limitations of such principles, including (1) that they mask ethical disagreements between and within stakeholder communities, and (2) that they provide little guidance for how to resolve trade-offs between different values. This paper argues that efforts to develop responsible digital health practices could benefit from paying closer attention to a different branch of medical ethics, namely public health ethics. In particular, I argue that the influential "accountability for reasonableness" (A4R) approach to public health ethics can help overcome some of the limitations of existing digital ethics principles. A4R seeks to resolve trade-offs through decision-procedures designed according to certain shared procedural values. This allows stakeholders to recognize decisions reached through these procedures as legitimate, despite their underlying disagreements. I discuss the prospects for adapting A4R to the context of responsible digital health and suggest questions for further research.

Are the core values of the radiological protection system shared across cultures?

In spite of ongoing globalisation in many fields, the ethics of radiological protection have long been discussed almost exclusively in terms of 'Western' moral philosophy concepts such as utilitarianism or deontology. A cross-cultural discourse in this field is only just beginning. In 'Principles of Biomedical Ethics', Beauchamp and Childress suggested that there exists a 'common morality' which is 'not relative to cultures or individuals, because it transcends both'. They proposed four cross-culturally valid principles for decision making in medicine: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. A similar approach is being developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection Task Group 94 on the ethics of radiological protection. Here, the core values are: human dignity, beneficence/non-maleficence, prudence, and justice. Other values could be added, such as consideration for the interests of society as a whole or the interests of future generations, or procedural values such as transparency and accountability; this paper will include a brief discussion on how they relate to the four basic principles. The main question to be addressed here, however, is whether the proposed core values are indeed part of a 'common morality'. This, as it will be argued, cannot be decided by a global opinion poll, but has to be based on an analysis of the written and oral traditions that have provided ethical orientation throughout history, and are still considered seminal by the majority of people. It turns out that there are indeed many commonalities across cultures, and that the concept of globally shared core values for the radiological protection system is not hopelessly idealistic.