[“通过蓝牙发出团结的信号?”-对Corona Warn应用程序上公开辩论的医学伦理分析]。

Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-28 DOI:10.1007/s00481-023-00751-z
Niklas Ellerich-Groppe
{"title":"[“通过蓝牙发出团结的信号?”-对Corona Warn应用程序上公开辩论的医学伦理分析]。","authors":"Niklas Ellerich-Groppe","doi":"10.1007/s00481-023-00751-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Definition of the problem: </strong>In the public debate in Germany on the Corona-Warn-App, the concept of solidarity is a prominent, but contested normative reference point. Thus, different uses of the concept with heterogeneous assumptions, normative implications and practical consequences stand next to each other and require medical ethical investigation. Against this backdrop, this contribution aims firstly to illustrate the spectrum of understandings of the concept of solidarity in the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App. Secondly, it elaborates the preconditions and normative implications of these uses and evaluates them from an ethical perspective.</p><p><strong>Arguments: </strong>Starting with an introduction of the Corona-Warn-App and a general definition of the concept of solidarity, I present four examples for different uses of the concept of solidarity from the public discourse on the Corona-Warn-App that vary regarding the underlying identification, the group of solidarity, the solidarity contribution and the normative goal. They highlight the need for further ethical standards in order to assess their legitimacy. Hence, I use four normative criteria of a context-sensitive, morally substantial conception of solidarity (openness, malleable inclusivity, adequacy of the contribution, normative dependence) to ethically evaluate the solidarity recourses presented.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Critical remarks can be formulated for all presented notions of solidarity. On the one hand, the potentials and limitations of solidarity recourses in public debates become apparent. On the other, criteria can be derived for a solidarity-promoting use of the Corona-Warn-App.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9974053/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[\\\"Sending a signal of solidarity via bluetooth?\\\"-A medical ethical analysis of the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App].\",\"authors\":\"Niklas Ellerich-Groppe\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00481-023-00751-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Definition of the problem: </strong>In the public debate in Germany on the Corona-Warn-App, the concept of solidarity is a prominent, but contested normative reference point. Thus, different uses of the concept with heterogeneous assumptions, normative implications and practical consequences stand next to each other and require medical ethical investigation. Against this backdrop, this contribution aims firstly to illustrate the spectrum of understandings of the concept of solidarity in the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App. Secondly, it elaborates the preconditions and normative implications of these uses and evaluates them from an ethical perspective.</p><p><strong>Arguments: </strong>Starting with an introduction of the Corona-Warn-App and a general definition of the concept of solidarity, I present four examples for different uses of the concept of solidarity from the public discourse on the Corona-Warn-App that vary regarding the underlying identification, the group of solidarity, the solidarity contribution and the normative goal. They highlight the need for further ethical standards in order to assess their legitimacy. Hence, I use four normative criteria of a context-sensitive, morally substantial conception of solidarity (openness, malleable inclusivity, adequacy of the contribution, normative dependence) to ethically evaluate the solidarity recourses presented.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Critical remarks can be formulated for all presented notions of solidarity. On the one hand, the potentials and limitations of solidarity recourses in public debates become apparent. On the other, criteria can be derived for a solidarity-promoting use of the Corona-Warn-App.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9974053/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-023-00751-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-023-00751-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

问题的定义:在德国关于Corona Warn应用程序的公开辩论中,团结的概念是一个突出但有争议的规范参考点。因此,具有异质假设、规范含义和实际后果的概念的不同用途是相辅相成的,需要进行医学伦理调查。在这种背景下,这篇文章首先旨在说明在Corona Warn应用程序的公开辩论中对团结概念的理解。其次,阐述了这些使用的前提条件和规范含义,并从伦理角度对其进行了评价。论点:从介绍Corona Warn应用程序和团结概念的一般定义开始,我举了四个例子,说明团结概念在Corona警告应用程序上的公共话语中的不同用途,这些例子在基本身份、团结群体、团结贡献和规范目标方面各不相同。他们强调需要进一步的道德标准来评估其合法性。因此,我使用了四个规范性标准,即上下文敏感、道德实质性的团结概念(开放性、可延展的包容性、贡献的充分性、规范性依赖性)来从道德上评估所提出的团结资源。结论:可以对所有提出的团结观念提出批评意见。一方面,团结资源在公共辩论中的潜力和局限性变得显而易见。另一方面,Corona Warn应用程序的团结推广使用标准也可以推导出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
["Sending a signal of solidarity via bluetooth?"-A medical ethical analysis of the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App].

Definition of the problem: In the public debate in Germany on the Corona-Warn-App, the concept of solidarity is a prominent, but contested normative reference point. Thus, different uses of the concept with heterogeneous assumptions, normative implications and practical consequences stand next to each other and require medical ethical investigation. Against this backdrop, this contribution aims firstly to illustrate the spectrum of understandings of the concept of solidarity in the public debate on the Corona-Warn-App. Secondly, it elaborates the preconditions and normative implications of these uses and evaluates them from an ethical perspective.

Arguments: Starting with an introduction of the Corona-Warn-App and a general definition of the concept of solidarity, I present four examples for different uses of the concept of solidarity from the public discourse on the Corona-Warn-App that vary regarding the underlying identification, the group of solidarity, the solidarity contribution and the normative goal. They highlight the need for further ethical standards in order to assess their legitimacy. Hence, I use four normative criteria of a context-sensitive, morally substantial conception of solidarity (openness, malleable inclusivity, adequacy of the contribution, normative dependence) to ethically evaluate the solidarity recourses presented.

Conclusion: Critical remarks can be formulated for all presented notions of solidarity. On the one hand, the potentials and limitations of solidarity recourses in public debates become apparent. On the other, criteria can be derived for a solidarity-promoting use of the Corona-Warn-App.

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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信