Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Positions of German and Israeli Patient Organizations in the Bioethical Context of End-of-Life Policies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patient organizations are increasingly involved in national and international bioethical debates and health policy deliberations. In order to examine how and to what extent cultural factors and organizational contexts influence the positions of patient organizations, this study compares the positions of German and Israeli patient organizations (POs) on issues related to end-of-life medical care. We draw on a qualitative pilot study of thirteen POs, using as a unit of analysis pairs comprised of one German PO and one Israeli PO that were matched on the basis of organizational category. Bioethical positions that emanated from the interviews concerned advance directives—general views, recent legal framework, and formalization; as well as active and passive euthanasia, withholding and withdrawing of treatment, and physician-assisted suicide. In addition to the unifying, within-country impact of cultural factors, we found that constituency-based organizations and partner organizations in both countries often share common views, whereas disease-based support organizations have very heterogeneous positions. We conclude by discussing how organizational contexts provide a source of uniformity as well as diversity in the positions of POs.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barbot, J. (2006). How to build an “active” patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 538–551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barilan, Y. M. (2007). The New Israeli law on the care of the terminally Ill. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50(4), 557–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beard, R. L. (2004). Advocating voice: Organisational, historical, and social milieu of the Alzheimer’s disease movement. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(6), 797–819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berghmans, R., Molewijk, B., & Widdershoven, G. (2009). Alzheimer’s disease and life termination: The Dutch debate. Bioethica Forum, 2(1), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R., & Gasior Altman, R. (2004). Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(1), 50–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bulow, H.- H. (2008). The world’s major religions’ points of view on end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Medicine, 34, 423–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2008). The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life—Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 33, 230–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crossley, N. (2006). Contesting psychiatry: Social movements in mental health. NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fox, P. (2000). The role of the concept of Alzheimer’s disease in the development of the Alzheimer’s Association in the United States. In P. Whitehouse, K. Maurer, & J. Ballenger (Eds.), The concept of Alzheimer’s disease: Biological, clinical, and cultural perspectives (pp. 209–233). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbon, S., & Novas, C. (Eds.). (2008). Biosocialities, genetics and the social sciences: making biologies and identities. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gottweis, H., & Prainsack, B. (2006). Emotion in political discourse: contrasting approaches to stem cell governance: the US, UK, Israel, and Germany. Regenerative Medicine, 1, 823–829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. (2007). A Life (Un)worthy of living: Reproductive genetics in Israel and Germany. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y., & Shkedi, S. (2007). On new reproductive technologies and family ethics: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for sibling donor in Israel and Germany. Social Science and Medicine, 65(10), 2081–2092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y., & Raz, A. E. (2010). Between social hypocrisy and social responsibility: Professional views of eugenics, disability and repro-genetics in Germany and Israel. New Genetics and Society, 29(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hurwitz, P. J., Picard, J., & Steinberg, A. (Eds.). (2006). Jewish ethics and the care of end-of-life patients. A collection of rabbinical, bioethical, philosophical, and juristic opinions. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobi, T., May, A. T., Kielstein, R., Bienwald W. (eds.) (2005). Ratgeber Patientenverfügung. Vorgedacht oder selbstverfasst? LIT Verlag Münster.

  19. Langstrup, H. (2011). Interpellating patients as users: Patient associations and the project-ness of stem cell research. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 36, 573–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Landzelius, K. (2006). Introduction: Patient organization movements and new metamorphoses in patienthood. Social Science and Medicine, 62(3), 529–537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leichtentritt, R. D., & Rettig, K. (1999). Meanings and attitudes towards end-of-life preferences in Israel. Death Studies, 23, 323–358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. May, A. (2009) “Ethical and empirical aspects of advance directives and end-of-life decisions,” presentation in the Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Göttingen University Medical Center, 4.12.2009.

  23. Morgan, S. (2002). In our hands: The women’s health movement 1969–1990. New Jersy: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Olick, J. K., & Levy, D. (1997). Collective memory and cultural constraint: Holocaust myth and rationality in German politics. American Sociological Review, 62(6), 921–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Panofsky, A. (2011). Generating sociability to drive science: Patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 31–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patientenrechtegesetz. (2012). http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Downloads/Gesetze_und_Verordnungen/Laufende_Verfahren/P/Patientenrechte/120524_Gesetzentwurf_BR_Patientenrechtegesetz_Zuleitungsexemplar_1707076.pdf. Last accessed May 23, 2012.

  27. Paul, D. (2008). Patient advocacy in newborn screening: Continuities and discontinuities. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 148, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the ‘partnership model’ of patient organization. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 2127–2136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rabeharisoa, V., & Callon, M. (2004). Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 142–160). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rabinow, P. (1996). Essays on the anthropology of reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Raz, A., & Schicktanz, S. (2009). Lay perceptions of genetic testing in Germany and Israel: The interplay of national culture and individual experience. New Genetics and Society, 28(4), 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Raz, A., & Schicktanz, S. (2009). Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: Moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy, 12(4), 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Raz, A. (2009). Community genetics and genetic alliances: eugenics, carrier testing, and networks of risk. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rose, N., & Novas, C. (2004). Biological citizenship. In A. Ong & S. Collier (Eds.), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ruzek, S. (1978). The women’s health movement: Feminist alternatives to medical control. New York: Prager.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schicktanz, S., Raz, A., & Shalev, C. (2010). The cultural context of patient’s autonomy and doctor’s duty: Passive euthanasia and advance directives in Germany and Israel. Med Health Care and Philos, 13, 363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schicktanz, S., Schweda, M., & Wynne, B. (2011). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schmuhl, H.-.W. (2000). Nationalsozialismus als Argument im aktuellen Medizinethik-Diskurs. Eine Zwischenbilanz [Euthanasia and the recent debate. Historical backgrounds of medical ethics]. In A. Frewer, C. Eickhoff, (Eds.) Euthanasie und die aktuelle Sterbehilfe-Debatte. Die historischen Hintergruende medizinischer Ethik (pp. 385–407). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

  39. Schotsmans, P. (2003). Relational responsibility, and not only Stewardship. A Roman Catholic view on voluntary euthanasia for dying and non-dying patients. Christian Bioethics, 9(2–3), 285–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shalev, C. (2010). Reclaiming the patients’ voice and spirit in dying. An insight from Israel. Bioethics, 24(3), 134–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shalev, C. (2009). End-of-life care in Israel—The dying patient law 2005. Israel Law Review, 42(2), 279–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sinclair, D. (2003). Jewish biomedical law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Taussig, K., Rapp, R., & Heath, D. (2003). Flexible eugenics: Technologies of the self in the age of genetics. In A. H. Goodman, D. Heath, & S. M. Lindee (Eds.), Genetic nature/culture (pp. 58–76). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Terry, S. F., Terry, P. F., Rauen, K. A., Uitto, J., & Bercovitch, L. G. (2007). Advocacy groups as research organizations: The PXE International example. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 157–164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Teutsch, D., & Waxman, D. (2002). Behoref Hayamim/in the winter of life: A values-based Jewish guide for decision making at the end of life. NY: Reconstructionist Rabbinical College Center for Jewish Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wehling, P. (2011). The ‘‘technoscientization’’ of medicine and its limits: Technoscientific identities, biosocialities, and rare disease patient organizations. Poiesis and Praxis, 8, 67–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wiesing, U., Jox, R. J., Hessler, H. J., & Borasio, G. D. (2010). A new law on advance directives in Germany. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(12), 779–783.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wood, B. (2000). Patient power? The politics of patients’ associations in Britain and America. Birmingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. World Health Organization (1994). A declaration on the promotion of patients’ rights in Europe, http://www.who.int/genomics/public/eu_declaration1994.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the POs representatives who participated in this study, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. I. Jordan was funded by a research grant provided by the VolkswagenStiftung. A. Raz and S. Schicktanz would like to thank the generous support of the German-Israeli Foundation, GIF Grant No. 1023-317.4/2008, “Cross-Cultural Ethics of Health and Responsibility: Expert and lay perspectives regarding bioethical dilemmas in Germany and Israel”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Aviad Raz

  2. Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Isabella Jordan & Silke Schicktanz

Authors
  1. Aviad Raz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabella Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silke Schicktanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aviad Raz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raz, A., Jordan, I. & Schicktanz, S. Exploring the Positions of German and Israeli Patient Organizations in the Bioethical Context of End-of-Life Policies. Health Care Anal 22, 143–159 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0213-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0213-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation