ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2016
Understanding collective agency in bioethics.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intergenerational healthcare ethics: considering conceptualizations of generations and their collective and temporal dimensions.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Cancer Survivorship and the Significance of an Integrated Diachronic Life Course Perspective.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Review
- Merging Minds: The Conceptual and Ethical Impacts of Emerging Technologies for Collective Minds.Neuroethics · 2023Article
- Alzheimer's Patient Organizations' Role in Enabling Citizenship Projects: A Comparison of the USA, Germany, and the UK.Frontiers in sociology · 2020Article
- Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- One For All, All For One? Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Representing Whom? U.K. Health Consumer and Patients' Organizations in the Policy Process.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- The relevance of different trust models for representation in patient organizations: conceptual considerations.BMC health services research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26948497What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.