Abstract
In this paper, we explore and discuss the use of the concept of being affected in biomedical decision making processes in Germany. The corresponding German term ‘Betroffenheit’ characterizes on the one hand a relation between a state of affairs and a person and on the other an emotional reaction that involves feelings like concern and empathy with the suffering of others. An example for the increasing relevance of being affected is the postulation of the participation of people with disabilities and chronic or acute diseases in the discourse, as partly realized in the German National Ethics Council or the Federal Joint Committee. Nevertheless, not only on the political level, the resistance against the participation of affected people is still strong; the academic debate seems to be cross-grained, too. Against this background, we explore the meaning and argumentative role of the concept of being affected as it is used by affected and lay people themselves. Our analysis is based on four focus group discussions in which lay people, patients and relatives of patients discuss their attitudes towards biomedical interventions such as organ transplantation and genetic testing. This setting allows for a comparison of how affected and non-affected people are concerned and deliberate about medical opportunities, but also of how they position themselves as being affected or non-affected with respect to (scientific) knowledge and morality. On this basis, we discuss the normative relevance of being affected for the justification of political participation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Badcott, D.: (2005) The Expert Patient: Valid Recognition or False Hope? Med Health Care Philos 8, 173–178
Bentele, K.: (2006) Das Argument mit den Betroffenen. Gen-ethischer Informationsdienst (GID) 175, 18–21
Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx: (2005) The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics. Bioethics 19 (1), 49–71
Busby, H., G. Williams and A. Rogers: (1997) Bodies of Knowledge: Lay and Biomedical Understandings of Muskosceletal Disorders. in: M.A. Elston (eds): The Sociology of Medical Science and Technology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 79–99
Callon, M. and V. Rabeharisoa: 2004, ‘Gino’s Lesson on Humanity: Genetics, Mutual Entanglements and the Sociologist’s Role’, Econ Soc 33 (1), 1–27
Cloerkes, G. (ed.): 2003, Wie man behindert wird. Texte zur Konstruktion einer sozialen Rolle und zur Lebenssituation betroffener Menschen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter
Edgar, A.: 2004, ‘Healthcare and the Habermasian Public Sphere’, in: S. Holm and M.F. Jonas (eds.), Engaging the World. The Use of Empirical Research in Bioethics and the Regulation of Biotechnology. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 8–17
Epstein, S.: 1986, Impure Science. AIDS, Activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley.: University of California Press.
Goffman, E.: (1963) Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Shuster
Habermas, J.: 1990, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Harding, S. (ed.): 2004, The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, New York.: Routledge
Hermann, M.: 1991, ,Betroffenheit gegen Expertentum’, Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 2 (3), 387–389
Jasanoff, S.: 2003, ‘Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science’, Minerva 41 (3), 223–244
Johnstone, D.: 2001, An Introduction to Disability Studies. (2nd ed.) London: David Fulton Publishers
Kreß, K. and K.-G. Nikolai: 1985, Bürgerinitiativen: Zum Verhältnis von Betroffenheit und politischer Beteiligung. Bonn: Bouvier
Lambert, H. and H. Rose: 1996, ‘Disembodied Knowledge? Making Sense of Medical Science’, in: A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge M.S.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–83
Lemke, T.: 2006, ‘Genetic Responsibility and Neo-liberal Governmentality: Medical Diagnosis as Moral Technology’, in: A. Beaulieu and D. Gabbard (eds.), Michel Foucault and Power today. Oxford: Lexington Books, pp. 83–91
Luhmann, N.: 1991, Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin.: de Gruyter
Morgan, D.L.: 1997, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks.: Sage.
Novas, C. and N. Rose: 2000, ‘Genetic Risk and the Birth of the Somatic Individual’, Econ Soc 29, 485–513.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott and M. Gibbons: 2001, Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Blackwell, Polity Press
Nunner-Winkler, G.: 1984, ‘Two Moralities? A Critical Discussion of an Ethics of Care and Responsibility Versus an Ethics of Rights and Justice’, in: W. M. Kurtines and J. L. Gewirtz (eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 348–361
Praetorius, I.: 2001, ‘Die Heilung von Leiden. Das “Trumpf-Argument” und seine Widerlegung’, in: S. Grauman (ed.), Die Genkontroverse. Grundpositionen, Freiburg: Herder, pp. 45–51
Rabeharisoa, V. and M. Callon: 2004, ‘Patients and Scientists in French Muscular Dystrophy Research’, in: S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge. The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 142–160
Rammstedt, O.: 1981, ,Betroffenheit – Was heißt das?’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 22 (12), 452
Renn, O., Th. Webler, P. Wiedemann (eds.): 1995, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Dordrecht: Kluver
Scheele, B.: 1991, ,Statt unvernünftiger Betroffenheit: betroffene Vernunft als regulative Zielidee sozialwissenschaftlicher Beobachtung/Befragung’, Ethik und Sozialwissenschaft 2 (4), 556–558
Scully, J.L.: 2005, ‘Disabled Knowledge. Die Bedeutung von Krankheit und Körperlichkeit für das Selbstbild’, in: S. Ehm and S. Schicktanz (eds.): Körper als Maß? Stuttgart: Hirzel, pp. 187–206
Singer, P: 1979, Practical Ethics. Cambridge.: Cambridge University Press
Starr, C.: 1969, ‘Social Benefits vs. Technological Risk: What is our Society Willing to Pay for Safety?’, Science 165: 1232–1238.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin: 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage
Ten Have, H.: 2001, ‘Genetics and Culture: The Geneticization Thesis’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4, 295–304
Thimm, W.: 1989, ,Betroffenheit, Sinngebung, Instrumentalisierung’, in: W. Thimm (ed.), Ethische Aspekte der Hilfen für Behinderte : unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung. Marburg: Lebenshilfe-Verlag, pp. 181–183
Uebersax, P.: 1991, Betroffenheit als Anknüpfung für Partizipation. Herleitung eines Modells der Betroffenenbeteiligung mit besonderer Behandlung des Aspekts örtlicher Betroffenheit. Basel.: Helbing & Lichtenhahn
Williams, M.: 1998, Voice, trust and memory. Marginalized Groups and the failing of liberal representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
World Health Organisation: 1994, A Declaration on the Promotion of Patients’ Rights in Europe, Amsterdam 28–30 March 1994.
Wynne, B.: 1980, ‘Technology, Risk, and Participation: The Social Treatment of Uncertainty’, in: J Conrad (ed.), Society, Technology and Risk Assessment. London and New York: Academic Press, pp. 83–107
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Katrin Bentele (Frankfurt a.M.), Maximilian Fochler (Vienna), and Brian Wynne (Lancaster) for helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schicktanz, S., Schweda, M. & Franzen, M. ‘In a completely different light’? The role of ‘being affected’ for the epistemic perspectives and moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people. Med Health Care and Philos 11, 57–72 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-007-9074-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-007-9074-2