Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/109021
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Street, J. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Marshall, H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Braunack-Mayer, A. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rogers, W. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ryan, P. | - |
dc.contributor.author | The Fluviews Team, | - |
dc.contributor.editor | Dodds, S. | - |
dc.contributor.editor | Ankeny, R. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains, 2016 / Dodds, S., Ankeny, R. (ed./s), vol.16, Ch.12, pp.245-261 | - |
dc.identifier.isbn | 3319322400 | - |
dc.identifier.isbn | 9783319322407 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/109021 | - |
dc.description.abstract | This book addresses the problem of how to make democratically-legitimate public policy on issues of contentious bioethical debate. It focuses on ethical contests about research and their legitimate resolution, while addressing questions of political legitimacy. How should states make public policy on issues where there is ethical disagreement, not only about appropriate outcomes, but even what values are at stake? What constitutes justified, democratic policy in such conflicted domains? Case studies from Canada and Australia demonstrate that two countries sharing historical and institutional characteristics can reach different policy responses. This book is of interest to policymakers, bioethicists, and philosophers, and will deepen our understanding of the interactions between large-scale socio-political forces and detailed policy problems in bioethics. | - |
dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Jackie M. Street, Helen Marshall, Annette J. Braunack-Mayer, Wendy A. Rogers, Philip Ryan, and FluViews Team | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Springer | - |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology; 16 | - |
dc.rights | © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 | - |
dc.source.uri | https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7 | - |
dc.subject | Philosophy | - |
dc.title | Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: Two methods, two answers | - |
dc.type | Book chapter | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Switzerland | - |
dc.relation.grant | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP0775341 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Street, J. [0000-0002-1033-4341] | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Marshall, H. [0000-0003-2521-5166] | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Braunack-Mayer, A. [0000-0003-4427-0224] | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 3 Public Health publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
RA_hdl_109021.pdf Restricted Access | Restricted Access | 378.15 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.