{"title":"Closing the Door to Remain Open: The Politics of Openness and the Practices of Strategic Closure in the Fediverse","authors":"Jamie A. Theophilos","doi":"10.1177/20563051241308323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241308323","url":null,"abstract":"In early 2023, Meta announced that its new microblogging platform, Threads, would join the Fediverse, a network of free, open-source social media platforms. This decision created a rift within the Fediverse, with some users supporting Meta’s integration while others strongly opposing it. This research explores the practices and discourses of the latter group—users, developers, and server administrators—who aim to build a safer and more autonomous “free Fediverse.” By framing the Free Fediverse as a digital counterpublic, this article introduces the concept of “strategic closure” to illustrate how these actors resist corporate capture and maintain a safer online environment. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of sociomateriality and the politics of openness, my analysis highlights the entanglement between discursive and material aspects of these counterpublic practices. This study contributes to the broader discourse on alternative social media politics, emphasizing the ongoing negotiations between openness, safety, and technological design, and offers insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) for understanding counterpublics in the age of Big Tech.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"94 37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142879632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Pregnant women are often not listened to, but pathologising pregnancy isn't the solution.","authors":"Brad Partridge, Taryn Rebecca Knox","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-109931","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-109931","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Smajdor and Rasanen (2024) argue that pregnant women are routinely denied appropriate treatment because pregnancy is seen as normal, and so they are denied 'patient status'. They claim that formally classifying pregnancy as a disease may lead to better treatment for pregnant women. In this response, we argue that pathologising pregnancy and classifying all pregnant women as 'diseased patients' won't reconfigure care in ways that benefit all women. Rather, it will likely only embolden the view that clinicians are entitled to exercise jurisdiction over pregnant women and beget the increased use of medical intervention where it is not necessarily needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"50-51"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142605160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Integrating constructivism in the critical dialogue method of clinical ethics.","authors":"Ryan J Dougherty, Melanie Jeske, Faith E Fletcher","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110353","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-110353","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"24-25"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142391125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Pregnancy, pain and pathology: a reply to Smajdor and Räsänen.","authors":"Teresa Baron","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-109921","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-109921","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In their recent paper 'Is pregnancy a disease?', Anna Smajdor and Joona Räsänen argue in the affirmative, highlighting features shared by both pregnancy and paradigmatic diseases. In particular, they point to the harmful symptoms and side effects of pregnancy, and the provision of medical treatment to both pregnant patients and those aiming to avoid pregnancy. They consider both subjectivist and objectivist approaches taken by philosophers of health in defining disease, and point out that neither approach convincingly excludes pregnancy. Finally, they present a normative case for treating pregnancy as a disease, suggesting that this attitude could promote preventive provision of contraception and abortion, and encourage respect for (and better treatment of) patients' suffering during pregnancy. In this response, I challenge various parts of Smajdor and Räsänen's argument, and cast doubt on the normative benefits of their approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"48-49"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140945292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Sleight of Hand.","authors":"Emma Tumilty","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110219","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-110219","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"825-826"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142108132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Advancing the scholarship of clinical ethics consultation.","authors":"Clare Delany, Sharon Feldman, Lynn Gillam","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110534","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-110534","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"26-28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142682031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"No, pregnancy is not a disease.","authors":"Nicholas Colgrove, Daniel Rodger","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-109922","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-109922","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anna Smajdor and Joona Räsänen argue that we have good reason to classify pregnancy as a disease. They discuss five accounts of disease and argue that each account either implies that pregnancy is a disease or if it does not, it faces problems. This strategy allows Smajdor and Räsänen to avoid articulating their own account of disease. Consequently, they cannot establish that pregnancy <i>is</i> a disease, only that plausible accounts of disease suggest this. Some readers will dismiss Smajdor and Räsänen's claims as counterintuitive. By analogy, if a mathematical proof concludes '2+2=5', readers will know-without investigation-that an error occurred. Rather than dismiss Smajdor and Räsänen's work, however, the easiest way to undermine their argument is to describe at least one plausible account of disease that (1) excludes pregnancy and (2) avoids the problems they raise for it. This is our strategy. We focus on dysfunction accounts of disease. After outlining Smajdor and Räsänen's main arguments against dysfunction accounts, we explain why pregnancy is not a disease on these accounts. Next, we defend dysfunction accounts against the three problems that Smajdor and Räsänen raise. If successful, then contra Smajdor and Räsänen, at least one plausible account of disease does not imply that pregnancy is a disease. We suspect that defenders of other accounts can respond similarly. Yet, we note that insofar as dysfunction accounts align with the commonsense intuition that pregnancy is not a disease, this, all else being equal, seems like a point in their favour.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"45-47"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140945291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jilles Smids, Charlotte H C Bomhof, Eline Maria Bunnik
{"title":"'Empathy counterbalancing' to mitigate the 'identified victim effect'? Ethical reflections on cognitive debiasing strategies to increase support for healthcare priority setting.","authors":"Jilles Smids, Charlotte H C Bomhof, Eline Maria Bunnik","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109646","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-109646","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Priority setting is inevitable to control expenditure on expensive medicines, but citizen support is often hampered by the workings of the 'identified victim effect', that is, the greater willingness to spend resources helping identified victims than helping statistical victims. In this paper we explore a possible cognitive debiasing strategy that is being employed in discussions on healthcare priority setting, which we call 'empathy counterbalancing' (EC). EC is the strategy of directing attention to, and eliciting empathy for, those who might be harmed as a result of one-sided empathy for the very ill who needs expensive treatment. We argue that governments have good reasons to attempt EC because the identified victim effect distorts priority setting in ways that undermine procedural fairness. We briefly outline three areas of application for EC and suggest some possible mechanisms that might explain how EC might work, if at all. We then discuss four potential ethical concerns with EC. First, EC might have the counterproductive effect of reducing overall citizen support for public funding of expensive medical treatments, thereby undermining solidarity. Second, EC may give rise to a 'competition in suffering', which may have unintended side effects for patients who feature in attempts at EC. Third, there may be doubts about whether EC is effective. Fourth, it may be objected that EC comes down to emotional manipulation, which governments should avoid. We conclude that insofar these concerns are valid they may be adequately addressed, and that EC seems a promising strategy that merits further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"29-33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139972224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Healthcare strikes and the ethics of voting in ballots.","authors":"Ben Saunders","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109502","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-109502","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"802-805"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138482472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joseph Ochieng, Betty Kwagala, John Barugahare, Marlo Möller, Keymanthri Moodley
{"title":"Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study.","authors":"Joseph Ochieng, Betty Kwagala, John Barugahare, Marlo Möller, Keymanthri Moodley","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108885","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2022-108885","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"829-834"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11286839/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139642331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}