Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 411–422 | Cite as

Understanding collective agency in bioethics

  • Katharina Beier
  • Isabella Jordan
  • Claudia Wiesemann
  • Silke Schicktanz
Scientific Contribution


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.


Bioethics Collective Autonomy Family Social identity Patient organization Trust 



This paper results from the project “Autonomy and Trust in Modern Medicine,” which was funded by the Volkswagen-Foundation (2010–2014). We would like to thank Stephan Elkins (SocioTrans–Social Science Translation & Editing) for his translation work and language editing.


  1. Appiah, K.A. 2005. The ethics of identity. Woodstock: Princeton.Google Scholar
  2. Baier, A. 1986. Trust and anti-trust. Ethics 96: 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier, K. 2015. Surrogate Motherhood–a trust-based approach. Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 40(6): 631–652.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M., and P. Watson. 2011. Patients’ organizations and their opinions: How much have they been taken into consideration when regulating stem cell research? In Translational stem cell research: issues beyond the debate on the moral status of the human embryo, ed. K. Hug, and G. Hermerén, 365–373. New York: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boddington, P. 1998. Organ donation after death—Should i decide, or should my family? Journal of Applied Philosophy 15(1): 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratman, M.E. 2006. Shared cooperative action. Philosophical Review 101(2): 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bromley, R.L. 2014. Financial stability in biobanking: unique challenges for disease-focused foundations and patient advocacy organizations. Biopreservation and Biobanking 12(5): 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, P., et al. 2011. Contested illnesses. Citizens, science, and health social movements. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, P., and S. Zavestoski. 2004. Social movements in health: An introduction. Sociology of Health and Illness 26(6): 679–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchholz, E.H. 2010. Der (selbst-)geschützte Patient. Eine gesundheitswissenschaftliche Studie. Nomos: Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, D.E. 1991. Collective responsibility. In The spectrum of responsibility, ed. P.A. French, 255–264. New York: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crouch, R.A., and C. Elliot. 1999. Moral agency and the family: The case of living related organ transplantation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8: 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engelhardt, H.D. 2011. Leitbild Menschenwürde. Wie Selbsthilfeinitiativen den Gesundheits- und Sozialbereich demokratisieren. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science; AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Feinberg, J. 1986. Harm to self. The moral limits of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fineman, M.A. 1999. What place for family privacy. George Washington Law Review 67(5–6): 1207–1224.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, P.J., and R.L. Beard. 2008. Resisting social disenfranchisement: Negotiating collective identities and everyday life with memory loss. Social Science and Medicine 66: 1509–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. French, P.A., and H.K. Wettstein. 2006. Shared intentions and collective responsibility. Midwest studies. Boston: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Gilbar, R., and O. Gilbar. 2009. The medical decision-making process and the family: The case of breast cancer patients and their husbands. Bioethics 23(3): 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, M. 1990. Walking together. Midwest Studies Philosophy 15: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, M. 1992. On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hardwig, J. 1990. What about the family. The Hastings Center Report 20(2): 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartmann, M. 2011. Die Praxis des Vertrauens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Hauser-Schäublin, B., et al. 2008. Der geteilte Leib: Die kulturelle Dimension von Organtransplantation und Reproduktionsmedizin in Deutschland. Göttingen: Campus.Google Scholar
  25. High, D.M. 1988. All in the family: Extended autonomy and expectations in surrogate health-care decision-making. The Gerontologist 28: 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ho, A. 2008. Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family`s role in medical decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science 22: 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeske, D. 1998. Families, friends and special obligations. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28(4): 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kymlicka, W. 1994. Individual and community rights. In Group rights, ed. J. Baker, 17–33. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kymlicka, W. 1996. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lahno, B. 2001. On the emotional character of trust. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4: 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langstrup, H., and J. Sommerlund. 2008. Who has more life? Authentic bodies and the ethopolitics of stem cells. Configurations 16(3): 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindemann Nelson, H., and J. Lindemann Nelson. 1995. The patient in the family. An ethics of medicine and families. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Matzat, J. 2001–2002. The development of self-help groups and support for them in germany. Self Help and Self Care 1(4): 307–322.Google Scholar
  34. MacKinnon, C. 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge MS: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Macklin, R. 1991. Artificial means of reproduction and our understanding of the family. Hastings Center Report 21(1): 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Minow, M.L. 1991. Redefining families: Who’s in & who’s out? University of Colorado Law Review 62(2): 269–285.Google Scholar
  37. Moller Okin, S. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Montgomery, R.J. 1999. The family role in the context of long-term care. Aging Health. 11(3): 383–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morgen, S. 2002. Into our own hands: The women’s health movement in the United States, 1969–1990. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Murray, T. 2002. What are families for? Getting to an ethics of reproductive technology. Hastings Center Report 32(3): 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Panofsky, A. 2010. Generating sociability to drive science: Patient advocacy organizations and genetic research. Social Studies of Science 41(1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pellegrino, E.D. 1990. The medical profession as a moral community. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 66(3): 221–232.Google Scholar
  43. Pettit, P. 2003. Groups with minds of their own. In Socializing metaphysics—The nature of social reality, ed. F. Schmitt, 167–193. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  44. Pettit, P., and D.P. Schweikard. 2006. Joint actions and group agents. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36(1): 18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2000. Les associations de malades et la recherche: 1. Des self-help groups aux associations de malades. Médecine Sciences 16(8–9): 945–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2002. The involvement of patients’ associations in research. International Social Science Journal 54(171): 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2003. Research “in the Wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society 25: 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruzek, S.B., et al. 1997. Women’s health: Complexities and differences. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Scheffler, S. 1997. Relationships and responsibilities. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schicktanz, S. 2015. The ethical legitimacy of patient organizations’ involvement in politics and knowledge production: Epistemic justice as a conceptual basis. In The Public Shaping of Medical Research: Patient Associations, Health Movements and Biomedicine (Routledge Studies in the Sociology of Health and Illness), ed. P. Wehling and W. Viehöver, 246–264. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Schicktanz, S. and Jordan, I. 2013. Kollektive Patientenautonomie. Theorie und Praxis eines neuen bioethischen Konzepts. In Patientenautonomie. Theoretische Grundlagen – Praktische Anwendungen, ed. C. Wiesemann and A. Simon, 287–302. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  52. Schicktanz, S. et al. 2012. The ethics of public understanding of ethics—why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients voices. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 15(2): 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schicktanz, S. et al. 2008. In a completely different light? The role of being affected for the epistemic perspectives and moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 11(1): 57–72.Google Scholar
  54. Seymour Fahmy, M. 2013. On procreative responsibility in assisted and collaborative reproduction. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16: 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, P. 2010. Family responsibility and the nature of obligation. In The ethics of the family, ed. S. Scales, et al., 41–58. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Schmid, H.B. and Schweikard, D.P. 2009. Einleitung: Kollektive Intentionalität. Begriff, Geschichte, Probleme. In: Kollektive Intentionalität. Eine Debatte über die Grundlagen des Sozialen, ed. H.B. Schmid and D.P. Schweikard, 11–65. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  57. Schweikard, D.P. 2013. Kollektive Autonomie und Autonomie in Kollektiven. In Patientenautonomie. Theoretische Grundlagen – Praktische Anwendungen, ed. C. Wiesemann, and A. Simon, 303–315. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  58. Sommers, C.H. 1989. Philosophers against the family. In Person to person, ed. H. La Follette, and G. Graham, 82–105. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stoutland, F. 1997. Why are philosophers of action so anti-social? In Commonality and particularity in ethics, ed. L. Alanen, et al., 45–74. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tuomela, R. 2003. Collective acceptance, social institutions, and group beliefs. In Kaltblütig. Philosophie von einem rationalen Standpunkt. Festschrift für Gerhard Vollmer zum 60. geburtstag, ed. W. Buschlinger, and C. Lüdge, 429–446. Stuttgart: Hirzel.Google Scholar
  61. Verkerk, M.A. et al. 2014. Where families and healthcare meet. Journal of Medical Ethics. Google Scholar
  62. Wehling, P. 2011. The “Technoscientization” of medicine and its limits. Technoscientific identities, biosocialities, and rare disease patient organizations. Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science 8: 67–82.Google Scholar
  63. Wehling, P., et al. 2015. The public shaping of medical research. Patient associations, health movements and biomedicine. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. WHO (The World Health Organization) 1994. A declaration on the promotion of patients’ rights in Europe. European consultation on the rights of patients. Amsterdam 2028 March 1994. Google Scholar
  65. Wiesemann, C. 2006. Von der Verantwortung ein Kind zu bekommen. Eine Ethik der Elternschaft. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  66. Wiesemann, C. 2010. The moral challenge of natality: Towards a post-traditional concept of family and privacy in repro-genetics. New Genetics and Society 29: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiesemann, C. 2016. Moral Equality, Bioethics, and the Child. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Wiesemann, C., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2003. Ethik der Transplantationsmedizin. In Bioethik. Eine Einführung, ed. M. Düwell, and K. Steigleder, 284–290. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  69. Williams, M.S. 1998. Voice, trust and memory. Marginalized groups and the failings of liberal representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Woodhouse, B.B. 1999. The dark side of family privacy. George Washington Law Review 67: 1247–1262.Google Scholar
  71. Young, I.M. 1997. Intersecting voices. Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina Beier
    • 1
  • Isabella Jordan
    • 1
  • Claudia Wiesemann
    • 1
  • Silke Schicktanz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Ethics and History of MedicineUniversity Medical Center GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations