Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Focus
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. There is a difference between moral arguments, which can be found in the social debate, and the ethical reflection on these arguments. Ethics can be reconstructed as a profession that deals with the weighing of conflicting factual moral arguments (Gethmann 1991).

References

  • Agersnap T (1992) Consensus conferences for technology assessment. In: Technology and democracy. Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on technology assessment, Copenhagen, pp 45–54

  • Agersnap T, Jacobsen G, Kempinsky J (1984) Konsensus conferencer i Danmark. Dansk Sygehus Institut, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Banta HD, Oortwijn WJ, Van Beekum WT (1995) The organization of health care technology assessment in the Netherlands. Rathenau Institute, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates J (1971) Technology assessment: the benefits, the costs, the consequences. Futurist 5:225–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann CF (1991) Ethische Aspekte des Handelns unter Risiko. In: Lutz-Bachmann M (ed) Freiheit und Verantwortung. Morus, Berlin, pp 152–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann CF (1999) Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung. In: Grunwald A (ed) Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung. Konzepte und methodische Grundlagen. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 1–10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Webler T (1998) Der kooperative Diskurs. Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Möglichkeiten. In: Renn O, Kastenholz H, Schild P, Wilhelm U (eds) Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Hochschulverlag der ETH Zürich, pp 1–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuzel RPB, Van der Wilt GJ (2000) Health technology assessment and evaluation: back to basics? Evaluation 6:383–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Medical Technology Assessment (hp MTA253), University Medical Centre Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9101, NL-6500HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Wija Oortwijn & Rob Reuzel

  2. Europäische Akademie GmbH, Wilhelmstr. 56, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Deutschland

    Michael Decker

Authors
  1. Wija Oortwijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rob Reuzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Decker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oortwijn, W., Reuzel, R. & Decker, M. Introduction. Poiesis Prax 2, 97–101 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0045-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0045-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation