Advertisement

Ethik in der Medizin

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 289–305 | Cite as

Stakeholder-Beteiligung in der klinischen Forschung: eine ethische Analyse

  • Solveig Lena Hansen
  • Tim Holetzek
  • Clemens Heyder
  • Claudia Wiesemann
Originalarbeit
  • 162 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht, wie angesichts eines Interessenpluralismus ethische Diskurse über innovative und hochriskante Forschungsvorhaben angemessen geführt werden können. Dazu rekonstruieren wir erstens den Begriff des Stakeholders im Kontext seiner Entstehung in der Unternehmensethik und Anwendung in der Medizinethik und legen dessen implizite normative Prämissen frei. Wir entwickeln zweitens eine Klassifizierung von Stakeholdern und illustrieren diese am Beispiel der klinischen Forschung. Besonderes Augenmerk wird dabei auf das Kriterium der Betroffenheit gelegt. Drittens werden für unterschiedliche Formen der Betroffenheit von Stakeholdern angemessene Beteiligungsverfahren vorgestellt, die von Information bis Empowerment reichen können. Wir zeigen, warum es für ethische Diskurse in der Medizin- und Bioethik wichtig ist, Betroffenheit und Beteiligungsverfahren auf transparente und nachvollziehbare Weise in ein reflektiertes Verhältnis zu setzen und wie das praktisch zu bewerkstelligen ist.

Schlüsselwörter

Stakeholder Klinische Forschung Kommunikation Partizipation Diskurs 

Stakeholder engagement in clinical research: an ethical analysis

Abstract

Definition of the problem

Concepts of stakeholder engagement are well established in business ethics and medical ethics. However, current approaches tend to see it as an end in itself. Thereby, two important aspects are often neglected: first, the general normative presuppositions of stakeholder engagement; second, moral implications concerning different modes of communication.

Arguments

The present article argues that normative presuppositions of stakeholder engagement can be understood by reconstructing existing approaches. Here, three ethical theories are relevant: deontology, contractualism, and discourse ethics. Furthermore, stakeholder involvement is related to modes of communication that range from information to empowerment. Drawing upon the example of clinical research, we argue that these modes have different normative weight in relation to the respective stakeholder’s form of affectedness.

Conclusion

We show why it is important for bioethics to reflect on the particular relation of affectedness and modes of participation, and how this can be realized in practice.

Keywords

Stakeholder Clinical research Communication Participation Discourse 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S.L. Hansen, T. Holetzek, C. Heyder und C. Wiesemann geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Ethische Standards

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. Abrahms F (1951) Management’s responsibilities in a complex world. Harv Bus Rev 29(3):29–34Google Scholar
  2. Ansoff IH (1965) Corporate strategy. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkhordarian GD, Demerjan G, Jan A, Sama N, Nguyen M, Du A, Chiappelli F (2015) Stakeholder engagement analysis – a bioethics dilemma in patient-targeted intervention: patients with temporaomandibular joint disorders. J Transl Med 13(15):1–7Google Scholar
  4. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (2015) Genomchirurgie beim Menschen – zur verantwortlichen Bewertung einer neuen Technologie. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll AB, Bucholtz AK (1993) Business and society: ethics and stakeholder management. Western, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarkson MBE (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manage Rev 20(1):92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen MA (2010) The narrow application of Rawls in business ethics: a political conception of both stakeholder theory and the morality of markets. J Bus Ethics 97:563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise J, Santa J, Conway PH, Daudelin D, Morrato EH, Leslie LK (2012) A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 27(8):985–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson S (1998) Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Community Plan 1262:14–15Google Scholar
  10. Deutscher Ethikrat (2017) Keimbahneingriffe am menschlichen Embryo: Deutscher Ethikrat fordert globalen politischen Diskurs und internationale Regulierung. Ad-Hoc-Empfehlung. Deutscher Ethikrat, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, Tunis SR (2012) Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 1(2):181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downey R, Geransar R (2008) Stem cell research, publics’ and stakeholder views. Health Law Rev 16(2):69–85Google Scholar
  13. DuBois JM, Antes AL (2018) Five dimensions of research ethics. A stakeholder framework for creating a climate of research integrity. Acad Med 93(4):550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2000) What makes clinical research ethical? J Am Med Assoc 283(20):2701–2711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A (2015) Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res 4(2):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman M (1970) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson K (2000) The moral basis of stakeholder theory. J Bus Ethics 26(3):245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson K (2007) Ethics and business. An introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas J (1984) Erläuterungen zum Begriff des kommunikativen Handelns. In: Habermas J. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., S 571–606Google Scholar
  21. Haigh G, Griffiths A (2007) The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: the case of climate change. Bus Strateg Environ 18(6):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen U, Bode M, Moosmayer D (2004) Stakeholder theory between general and contextual approaches – a German view. Z Wirtsch Unternehmenseth 5(3):242–254Google Scholar
  23. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S (2009) Community-based participartory research. From the margin to the mainstream. Circulation 119:2633–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB (1998) Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 19:173–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonas H (1979) Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  26. Jones TM, Felps WB, Gregory A (2007) Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions. The role of stakeholder culture. Acad Manage Rev 32(1):137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D (2014) Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS ONE 9(12):e113274.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113274 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenz I, Wetzel HA, Hammerschmidt M (2017) Can doing good lead to doing poorly? Firm value implications of CSR in the face of CSI. J Acad Mark Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0510-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine RJ (1988) Ethics and regulation of clinical research. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  30. Luyet V, Schlaepfer R, Parlange MB, Buttler A (2012) A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J Environ Manag 111:213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mikesell L, Bromley E, Khodyakov D (2013) Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review. Am J Public Health 103(12):e7–e13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell R, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22:853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Molewijk B, Kleinlugtenbelt D, Widdershoven G (2011) The role of emotions in moral case deliberation. Theory, practice, and methodology. Bioethics 25(7):383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mongoven AM (2003) Duties to stakeholders amidst pressures from shareholders: lessons from an advisory panel on transplant policy. Bioethics 17(4):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morain SR, Whicher DM, Kass NE, Faden RR (2017) Deliberative engagement methods for patient-centered outcomes research. Patient 10(5):545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont report. United States Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012) Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice, and the public good. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Ochocka J, Janzen R (2014) Breathing life into theory. Illustrations of community-based research: hallmarks, functions and phases. Gateways 7:18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orts EW, Strudler A (2002) The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 12(2):215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parmar BL, Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Purnell L, de Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Acad Manag Ann 4(1):403–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross WD (2002) The right and the good. Reprinted with an introduction by Philip Stratton-Lake. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Erstveröffentlichung 1930)Google Scholar
  43. Schicktanz S (2012) Epistemische Gerechtigkeit. Sozialempirie und Perspektivenpluralismus in der Angewandten Ethik. DZPhil 60(2):269-283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schicktanz S, Schweda M (2015) Inklusive Deliberation. In: Rauprich O, Jox R, Marckmann G (Hrsg) Vom Konflikt zur Lösung: ethische Entscheidungswege in der Biomedizin. Mentis, Münster, S 363–378Google Scholar
  45. Schicktanz S, Schweda M, Franzen M (2008) ‘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 Philos 11:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schicktanz S, Schweda M, Wynne B (2012) The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’ – why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Med Health Care Philos 15(2):129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schweber H (2016) The limits of political representation. Am Polit Sci Rev 110(2):382–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaw WH (2011) Business ethics. A textbook with cases, 7. Aufl. Wadsworth, BostonGoogle Scholar
  49. Smalley JB, Merritt MW, Al-Khatib SM, McCall D, Staman KL, Stepnowsky C (2015) Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials 12(5):476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R (2000) A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan 15(3):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Werhane PH (2000) Business ethics, stakeholder theory, and the ethics of healthcare organizations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 9(2):169–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wicks A, Freeman RE (1998) Organization studies and the new pragmatism: positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organ Sci 9(2):123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wright MT, von Unger H, Block M (2010) Partizipation der Zielgruppe in der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. In: Wright MT (Hrsg) Partizipative Qualitätsentwicklung in der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. Huber, Bern, S 35–52Google Scholar
  54. Zsolnai L (2006) Extended stakeholder theory. Soc Bus Rev 1(1):37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solveig Lena Hansen
    • 1
  • Tim Holetzek
    • 1
  • Clemens Heyder
    • 1
  • Claudia Wiesemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der MedizinUniversitätsmedizin GöttingenGöttingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations