对韩国前两次公众审议研讨会的批判性评价。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2026-10-14 Epub Date: 2026-09-14 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70190
Kyungdo Lee
{"title":"对韩国前两次公众审议研讨会的批判性评价。","authors":"Kyungdo Lee","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mini-publics, which constitute a microcosmic public deliberation process, are increasingly being used in addressing broad policy decisions. Following the trend of applying mini-publics in diverse policy decisions, the Korean National Health Insurance System experimentally held 16 public deliberation workshops since 2012. This study discusses the 5th and 10th workshops among the 16 conducted, using them as a case example to evaluate the utility and informativeness of mini-publics in health policy making. After briefly explaining the method and results of the two workshops, this study reviews the main arguments that call for the use of public deliberation in societal decisions. Based on these arguments, the study concludes that the results of the two workshops are insufficient to serve as useful information for relevant health policy making and the reasons therefor. The study posits that similar to the two workshops, mini-publics sometimes fail to provide informative results for technically oriented questions, result in serious disagreements and fall short of achieving some deliberative ideals, such as equal participation, reasonableness, and fairness. Given that running a public deliberation process is generally cost-consuming, despite its potential benefits, the current widespread applications of mini-publics should be carefully examined.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 9","pages":"1039-1049"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70190","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical Assessment of the Two Previous Public Deliberation Workshops in South Korea\",\"authors\":\"Kyungdo Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.70190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Mini-publics, which constitute a microcosmic public deliberation process, are increasingly being used in addressing broad policy decisions. Following the trend of applying mini-publics in diverse policy decisions, the Korean National Health Insurance System experimentally held 16 public deliberation workshops since 2012. This study discusses the 5th and 10th workshops among the 16 conducted, using them as a case example to evaluate the utility and informativeness of mini-publics in health policy making. After briefly explaining the method and results of the two workshops, this study reviews the main arguments that call for the use of public deliberation in societal decisions. Based on these arguments, the study concludes that the results of the two workshops are insufficient to serve as useful information for relevant health policy making and the reasons therefor. The study posits that similar to the two workshops, mini-publics sometimes fail to provide informative results for technically oriented questions, result in serious disagreements and fall short of achieving some deliberative ideals, such as equal participation, reasonableness, and fairness. Given that running a public deliberation process is generally cost-consuming, despite its potential benefits, the current widespread applications of mini-publics should be carefully examined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"40 9\",\"pages\":\"1039-1049\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70190\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70190\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70190","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

微型公众是一种微观的公众审议过程,越来越多地用于处理广泛的政策决定。国民健康保险从2012年开始试验性地举办了16次国民审议研讨会,顺应了在各种政策决策中运用微型公众的趋势。本研究讨论了已举办的16次研讨会中的第5次和第10次研讨会,并将其作为案例来评估迷你公众在卫生政策制定中的效用和信息量。在简要解释了两次研讨会的方法和结果之后,本研究回顾了呼吁在社会决策中使用公共审议的主要论点。基于这些论点,该研究的结论是,这两个讲习班的结果不足以为相关的卫生政策制定及其原因提供有用的信息。该研究认为,与这两个讲习班类似,小型公众有时无法为技术性问题提供翔实的结果,导致严重分歧,无法实现一些审议理想,如平等参与、合理和公平。鉴于进行公众审议程序虽然有潜在的好处,但通常成本很高,因此应仔细审查目前广泛应用的小型公共机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Critical Assessment of the Two Previous Public Deliberation Workshops in South Korea

Mini-publics, which constitute a microcosmic public deliberation process, are increasingly being used in addressing broad policy decisions. Following the trend of applying mini-publics in diverse policy decisions, the Korean National Health Insurance System experimentally held 16 public deliberation workshops since 2012. This study discusses the 5th and 10th workshops among the 16 conducted, using them as a case example to evaluate the utility and informativeness of mini-publics in health policy making. After briefly explaining the method and results of the two workshops, this study reviews the main arguments that call for the use of public deliberation in societal decisions. Based on these arguments, the study concludes that the results of the two workshops are insufficient to serve as useful information for relevant health policy making and the reasons therefor. The study posits that similar to the two workshops, mini-publics sometimes fail to provide informative results for technically oriented questions, result in serious disagreements and fall short of achieving some deliberative ideals, such as equal participation, reasonableness, and fairness. Given that running a public deliberation process is generally cost-consuming, despite its potential benefits, the current widespread applications of mini-publics should be carefully examined.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书