↓ Skip to main content

Understanding collective agency in bioethics

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding collective agency in bioethics
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11019-016-9695-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina Beier, Isabella Jordan, Claudia Wiesemann, Silke Schicktanz

Abstract

Bioethicists tend to focus on the individual as the relevant moral subject. Yet, in highly complex and socially differentiated healthcare systems a number of social groups, each committed to a common cause, are involved in medical decisions and sometimes even try to influence bioethical discourses according to their own agenda. We argue that the significance of these collective actors is unjustifiably neglected in bioethics. The growing influence of collective actors in the fields of biopolitics and bioethics leads us to pursue the question as to how collective moral claims can be characterized and justified. We pay particular attention to elaborating the circumstances under which collective actors can claim 'collective agency.' Specifically, we develop four normative-practical criteria for collective agency in order to determine the conditions that must be given to reasonably speak of 'collective autonomy'. For this purpose, we analyze patient organizations and families, which represent two quite different kinds of groups and can both be conceived as collective actors of high relevance for bioethical practice. Finally, we discuss some practical implications and explain why the existence of a shared practice of trust is of immediate normative relevance in this respect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 24%
Philosophy 3 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 8 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#12,655,165
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#261
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,301
of 298,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.