Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37252029›Full record

ArticleEthik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie fur Ethik in der Medizin2023

["Sending a signal of solidarity via bluetooth?"-A medical ethical analysis of the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App].

Niklas Ellerich-Groppe

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Ethik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie fur Ethik in der Medizin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Niklas Ellerich-GroppeAbteilung Ethik in der Medizin, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Deutschland.ORCID 0000-0002-0234-0506

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Definition of the problem: In the public debate in Germany on the Corona-Warn-App, the concept of solidarity is a prominent, but contested normative reference point. Thus, different uses of the concept with heterogeneous assumptions, normative implications and practical consequences stand next to each other and require medical ethical investigation. Against this backdrop, this contribution aims firstly to illustrate the spectrum of understandings of the concept of solidarity in the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App. Secondly, it elaborates the preconditions and normative implications of these uses and evaluates them from an ethical perspective. Arguments: Starting with an introduction of the Corona-Warn-App and a general definition of the concept of solidarity, I present four examples for different uses of the concept of solidarity from the public discourse on the Corona-Warn-App that vary regarding the underlying identification, the group of solidarity, the solidarity contribution and the normative goal. They highlight the need for further ethical standards in order to assess their legitimacy. Hence, I use four normative criteria of a context-sensitive, morally substantial conception of solidarity (openness, malleable inclusivity, adequacy of the contribution, normative dependence) to ethically evaluate the solidarity recourses presented. Conclusion: Critical remarks can be formulated for all presented notions of solidarity. On the one hand, the potentials and limitations of solidarity recourses in public debates become apparent. On the other, criteria can be derived for a solidarity-promoting use of the Corona-Warn-App.

Indexed as

Contact tracingCorona-Warn-AppDigital healthcarePublic discoursePublic healthSolidarity

Identifiers

PMID37252029
PMCPMC9974053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.