Die spezifischen Anforderungen riskanter Entscheidungslagen stellen die Medizinethik zunehmend vor die Herausforderung, normative Modelle der Risikokommunikation zu etablieren. Dabei geht es freilich nicht nur darum, Informationen über die Wahrscheinlichkeiten, mit denen bestimmte Ereignisse eintreten, bereitzustellen. Zur medizinischen Aufklärung gehört auch, dass Risiken verständlich kommuniziert werden. Andernfalls würde ein Patient zwar über Informationen verfügen, wäre aber nicht in der Lage, sie richtig zu interpretieren und zu bewerten. Der Beitrag stellt am Beispiel von Mammographie-Screenings Probleme der transparenten Kommunikation medizinischer Risiken dar. Diese (...) betreffen zum einen Informationen, die Ärztinnen und Ärzten in medizinischen Fachzeitschriften, zum anderen Informationen, die interessierten oder betroffenen Frauen in Broschüren vermittelt werden. Diese Schwierigkeiten der Risikokommunikation können teils durch institutionelle Lösungen, teils durch Aufklärung überwunden werden. (shrink)

Die spezifischen Anforderungen riskanter Entscheidungslagen stellen die Medizinethik zunehmend vor die Herausforderung, normative Modelle der Risikokommunikation zu etablieren. Dabei geht es freilich nicht nur darum, Informationen über die Wahrscheinlichkeiten, mit denen bestimmte Ereignisse eintreten, bereitzustellen. Zur medizinischen Aufklärung gehört auch, dass Risiken verständlich kommuniziert werden. Andernfalls würde ein Patient zwar über Informationen verfügen, wäre aber nicht in der Lage, sie richtig zu interpretieren und zu bewerten. Der Beitrag stellt am Beispiel von Mammographie-Screenings Probleme der transparenten Kommunikation medizinischer Risiken dar. Diese (...) betreffen zum einen Informationen, die Ärztinnen und Ärzten in medizinischen Fachzeitschriften, zum anderen Informationen, die interessierten oder betroffenen Frauen in Broschüren vermittelt werden. Diese Schwierigkeiten der Risikokommunikation können teils durch institutionelle Lösungen, teils durch Aufklärung überwunden werden. (shrink)

In this paper, I take a critical stance on the emerging field of nanoethics. After an introductory section, “Conceptual Foundations of Nanotechnology” considers the conceptual foundations of nanotechnology, arguing that nanoethics can only be as coherent as nanotechnology itself and then discussing concerns with this latter concept; the conceptual foundations of nanoethics are then explicitly addressed in “Conceptual Foundations of Nanoethics”. “Issues in Nanoethics” considers ethical issues that will be raised through nanotechnology and, in “What’s New?”, it is argued that (...) none of these issues is unique to nanotechnology. In “It’s a Revolution!”, I express skepticism about arguments which hold that, while the issues themselves might not be unique, they nevertheless are instantiated to such a degree that extant moral frameworks will be ill-equipped to handle them. In “What’s Different?”, I draw plausible distinctions between nanoethics and other applied ethics, arguing that these latter might well identify unique moral issues and, as such, distinguish themselves from nanoethics. Finally, in “What Now?”, I explore the conclusions of this result, ultimately arguing that, while nanoethics may fail to identify novel ethical concerns, it is at least the case that nanotechnology is deserving of ethical attention, if not a new associative applied ethic. (shrink)

It is often claimed that surveillance should be proportionate, but it is rarely made clear exactly what proportionate surveillance would look like beyond an intuitive sense of an act being excessive. I argue that surveillance should indeed be proportionate and draw on Thomas Hurka’s work on proportionality in war to inform the debate on surveillance. After distinguishing between the proportionality of surveillance per se, and surveillance as a particular act, I deal with objections to using proportionality as a legitimate ethical (...) measure. From there I argue that only certain benefits and harms should be counted in any determination of proportionality. Finally I look at how context can affect the proportionality of a particular method of surveillance. In conclusion, I hold that proportionality is not only a morally relevant criterion by which to assess surveillance, but that it is a necessary criterion. Furthermore, while granting that it is difficult to assess, that difficulty should not prevent our trying to do so. (shrink)

In pure science, the standard approach to non-epistemic values is to exclude them as far as possible from scientific deliberations. When science is applied to practical decisions, non-epistemic values cannot be excluded. Instead, they have to be combined with scientific information in a way that leads to practically optimal decisions. A normative model is proposed for the processing of information in both pure and applied science. A general-purpose corpus of scientific knowledge, with high entry requirements, has a central role in (...) this model. Due to its high entry requirements, the information that it contains is sufficiently reliable for the vast majority of practical purposes. However, for some purposes, the corpus needs to be supplemented with additional information, such as scientific indications of danger that do not satisfy the entry requirements for the corpus. The role of non-epistemic values in the evaluation of scientific information should, as far as possible, be limited to determining the level of evidence required for various types of practical decisions. (shrink)

A new formal model of belief dynamics is proposed, in which the epistemic agent has both probabilistic beliefs and full beliefs. The agent has full belief in a proposition if and only if she considers the probability that it is false to be so close to zero that she chooses to disregard that probability. She treats such a proposition as having the probability 1, but, importantly, she is still willing and able to revise that probability assignment if she receives information (...) that gives her sufficient reasons to do so. Such a proposition is undoubted, but not undoubtable. In the formal model it is assigned a probability 1 − δ, where δ is an infinitesimal number. The proposed model employs probabilistic belief states that contain several underlying probability functions representing alternative probabilistic states of the world. Furthermore, a distinction is made between update and revision, in the same way as in the literature on belief change. The formal properties of the model are investigated, including properties relevant for learning from experience. The set of propositions whose probabilities are infinitesimally close to 1 forms a belief set. Operations that change the probabilistic belief state give rise to changes in this belief set, which have much in common with traditional operations of belief change. (shrink)