Search

Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.

International audience; Grand societal challenges (GSCs) represent complex, multi-level, multi-dimensional problems that require concerted efforts by various actors-public, private, and non-profit-to be successfully addressed. Businesses-alone or in conjunction with governmental and nonprofit organizations-are relevant actors in this regard, as they represent a source of innovation. Responsible innovation (RI) is a framework that allows for the governance and evaluation of innovations with regard to their potential harmful consequences and positive contributions to societal challenges. Moreover, it stipulates that this evaluation process should be facilitated by appropriate governance structures at various levels. The aim of this article is to expand theorizing on GSCs and RI and to encourage research that explores their links. We outline pertinent characteristics of GSCs that make current conceptualizations of corporate social responsibility and social innovation limited in addressing GSCs. We explicate the reflexive and participative capacities of RI governance as a complementary and promising way forward. Finally, we introduce the contributions to this Special Issue as illustrations of relevant theoretical and empirical groundwork around GSCs and RI, and outline the agenda for future research.

Research in the past decade has highlighted the nuances of adolescent decision making. In this review article, we summarize several themes evident in the field of developmental science including the redefinition of adolescence and the ways in which adolescent decision-making capabilities converge with or diverge from those of adults. While the decision-making process is similar for adolescents and adults in contexts that encourage deliberation and reflection, adolescents and adults differ in contexts which preclude deliberation vis-à-vis high emotional arousal. We also discuss the reconceptualization of adolescent behavior, including risk taking, as adaptive. That is, characteristics of adolescence, including impulsivity, the importance of peers, and novelty seeking, are normative, evolutionarily advantageous, and essential for positive development. While these features manifest in negative, health-compromising ways (e.g., risky driving and criminal behavior), they also foster growth and exploration. We conclude with a discussion of potential avenues for future research.

Background:In the care of people with intellectual disability, support staff apply restrictions to people with moderate intellectual disabilities (ID) in several domains of daily life, such as restrictions on bedtimes or on the amount of food intake. Support staff may experience moral dilemmas applying these restrictions. In this respect, moral case deliberation (MCD) is used as an instrument for support staff to jointly reflect on dilemmas in care and is considered a form of ethical support. MCD also seems to broaden the perspective of their participants.Specific Aims:This study examined to what extent MCD led to changes in support staff's perspectives with regard to daily life restrictions placed upon people with moderate ID. Consequently, this study examined to what extent support staff's perspectives on these restrictions were broadened as a result of their participation in the study.Method:Prior to and following a series of three MCD sessions on moral dilemmas commonly encountered in daily life care, interviews were held with 12 support staff across two teams. Participants were asked what they considered to be good care in the given dilemmas. To systematically compare all of the answers given in the interviews prior to and following the MCDs, the same interview-guide was used in both instances. Interviews were analyzed inductively.Findings:Following the MCD sessions, the respondents tended to hold onto their perspective to restrict clients to provide them with structure, clarity and rest, as expressed prior to the MCD. However, some respondents adapted their perspective on restrictions and were willing to provide people with moderate ID more freedom after the MCD.Discussion:This study contributed to the evidence underlying MCD in healthcare and in providing insights into MCD with regard to daily life restrictions in the care of people with moderate ID. Partly, MCD leads to a broadening of perspective on restrictions applied in the daily life of people with moderate ID.

The obligations set by the individual right to health are likely to conflict, at least if states are its addressee, with the obligations set by the collective rights to self-determination that certain sub-state communities have (or should be recognized). In this paper, I argue that conceiving of the right to health and of collective rights to self-determination as both aiming at the promotion of individual agency might help us alleviate this particular problem. To do so, I first explain how we can conceive of the right to health and of collective rights to self-determination as protecting crucial aspects of individuals' agency. It is because both health and the capacity to participate in particular collectives are important ways in which our agency is enabled. I then argue that this conception of the purpose of those rights offers a principle to guide our practical deliberation when the protection of health and the protection of collective self-determination seem to conflict. Finally, I specify how I think this principle might guide us when it comes to understanding the obligations that the right to health sets for the state towards members of self-determining sub-state communities, both in terms of the provision of healthcare goods and services and the provision of the underlying determinants of health.

This paper addresses how the design of collaborative regimes influences markers of legitimacy in Swedish water- and large carnivore governance. Based on institutional analysis and statistical analy ...

The rise of the diaristic mode in contemporary art might seem like the return of the dead author in a particularly self-absorbed frame of mind. Yet the diary is a form of writing that relinquishes authorial control to the passing moods and contingencies of the day. The diarist writes hastily, automatically, involuntarily, thereby giving access to insights unavailable to deliberation. An account of Roland Barthes's Mourning Diary, 2009, and his reflections on the diary as a form of writing serve to introduce the diaristic work of two contemporary artists, Moyra Davey and Susan Morris. Their work is directly informed by Barthes's and others' experiments with a mode of address that is intimate, but also de-centred and fragmentary.

The COVID pandemic has brought a spectacular prominence to the role of digital technologies in public health. However, the policy discourse about digital technology has been for the most part strikingly narrow. Even as there is a discussion of the impact of particular digital tools, there is relatively little deliberation on the broader issues of how these technologies are reconstituting core aspects of health systems and polities. How did we get to a narrow debate on a vast topic? One way to understand this irony is by turning to the history of an older technology, namely agricultural biotechnology. This article focuses on two dominant framings that significantly narrowed the debates on agricultural biotechnology: first, a narrative that had a relentless focus on agricultural biotechnology as a neatly delineated field that produced stable products, and second, the ascent of a language of ethics that elided structural explanations and addressed only downstream impacts. The brief foray into the early years of agricultural biotechnology is useful in understanding contemporary politics of digital technology.

Fostering human-wildlife coexistence requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate multiple sectors, account for complexity and uncertainty, and ensure stakeholder participation. One such approach is participatory scenario planning, but to date, this approach has not been used in human-wildlife contexts. We devised a template for how participatory scenario planning can be applied to identify potential avenues for improving human-wildlife coexistence. We drew on 3 conceptual building blocks, namely the SEEDS framework, the notion of critical uncertainties, and the three-horizons technique. To illustrate the application of the proposed template, we conducted a case study in the Zambezi region of Namibia. We held 5 multistakeholder workshops that involved local people as well as numerous nongovernment and government stakeholders. We identified 14 important wildlife species that generated multiple services and disservices. The subsequent benefits and burdens, in turn, were inequitably distributed among stakeholders. Government actors played particularly influential roles in shaping social-ecological outcomes. We identified 2 critical uncertainties for the future: the nature of governance (fragmented vs. collaborative) and the type of wildlife economy (hunting vs. photography based). Considering these uncertainties resulted in 4 plausible scenarios describing future human-wildlife coexistence. Stakeholders did not agree on a single preferred scenario, but nevertheless agreed on several high-priority strategies. Bridging the remaining gaps among actors will require ongoing deliberation among stakeholders. Navigating the complex challenges posed by living with wildlife requires moving beyond disciplinary approaches. To that end, our template could prove useful in many landscapes around the world.Planeación de Escenarios Participativos para Facilitar la Coexistencia Humano-Fauna Resumen El fomento a la coexistencia humano-fauna requiere de estrategias transdisciplinarias que integren a múltiples sectores, consideren la complejidad y la incertidumbre y aseguren la participación de los actores. Una de estas estrategias es la planeación de escenarios de participación, pero hasta la fecha no se ha usado dentro de contextos humano-fauna. Diseñamos un modelo para poder aplicar la planeación de escenarios participativos para identificar vías potenciales para mejorar la coexistencia humano-fauna. Nos basamos en tres componentes conceptuales básicos, principalmente el marco de trabajo SEEDS, la noción de incertidumbres críticas y la técnica de los tres horizontes. Para ejemplificar la aplicación del modelo propuesto, realizamos un estudio de caso en la región del Zambeze en Namibia. Realizamos cinco talleres con múltiples actores, los cuales involucraron a los habitantes locales y a numerosos actores gubernamentales y no gubernamentales. Identificamos 14 especies de fauna importantes que generan múltiples servicios y perjuicios. Los beneficios y problemas subsecuentes, en cambio, estaban distribuidos injustamente entre los actores. Los actores gubernamentales tuvieron notablemente un papel de mucha influencia en la formación de los resultados socioecológicos. Identificamos dos incertidumbres importantes para el futuro: la naturaleza de la gestión (fragmentada versus colaborativa) y el tipo de economía faunística (basada en la cacería versus basada en la fotografía). Cuando consideramos estas incertidumbres, obtuvimos como resultado cuatro escenarios posibles descriptivos de la coexistencia humano-fauna en el futuro. Los actores no estuvieron de acuerdo sobre ningún escenario preferido; sin embargo, sí coincidieron en varias estrategias de prioridad alta. El cierre de las brechas restantes requerirá de una continua deliberación entre los actores. La navegación de los retos complejos generados por la convivencia con la fauna requiere ir más allá de las estrategias disciplinarias. Para este fin, nuestro modelo podría ser útil en muchos paisajes alrededor del mundo.

To inform decisions under deep uncertainty, risk analysts need to consider how best to deal with the fact that stakeholders often do not share specific concerns or fundamental perspectives. Lempert and Turner propose that deliberation can improve if models incorporate three worldviews defined in social science theory. This commentary suggests that competence and legitimacy are more likely to emerge from deliberation when models are built inductively, inquiring first about stakeholders' decision-relevant concerns and then developing models to speak to them. The added complexity of Lempert and Turner's modeling approach presents difficult tradeoffs with accessibility and trust.

This article offers the first empirical and cross‐national analysis of citizens’ views about the democratic importance of the public sphere. We first identify three normative functions that public spheres are expected to perform in representative democracies: they provide voice to alternative perspectives, they empower citizens to criticise political authorities and they disseminate information on matters of public interest. We then argue that citizens develop differentiated views about the importance of these democratic functions, depending on (1) their ability to influence political decisions through public debate, and (2) the extent to which voice, critique and information address democratic problems they particularly care about. Drawing on Wave 6 of the European Social Survey, the statistical analysis indicates that citizens in most European countries consider the public sphere very important for democracy, especially its role as a supplier of reliable information. However, certain groups tend to care more about different aspects of the public sphere. More educated citizens are more likely to assign greater importance to all three functions. Members of cultural and sexual minorities are more likely to emphasise the importance of giving voice to alternative perspectives, while citizens dissatisfied with the government are more likely to prioritise public criticism and access to reliable information. Finally, in countries with more democratic public spheres, differences based on education and minority status are wider, while differences based on government satisfaction disappear. These findings support the claim that citizens care more about the public sphere when they can effectively influence political decision making through public debate or when the public sphere addresses democratic problems that are especially important to them. Moreover, our results indicate that citizens see some of the functions that public spheres perform as core aspects of democracy, comparable in importance to free and fair elections and the rule of law. The article thus advances an empirically grounded defence of the centrality of public debate for democracy. (Less)

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are growing at an alarming rate around the world, drawing attention in multiple United Nations high‐level meetings, the Sustainable Development Goals, regional alliances for NCDs, and in scientific research agendas. In 2018, the World NCD Federation selected the University of Michigan from seven universities around the world to host the 2nd World NCD Congress in 2020. For the scientific program, we defined an intersecting matrix of “risk factors” and “disease‐oriented” lenses for examining NCDs to highlight the multiple risk factors that contribute to major NCDs. Through deliberation with two committees representing over 50 individuals and 11 countries, eight risk factors were selected for the scientific program: social determinants of health and demographics, climate and environment, stress, sleep, substance use, nutrition, and physical activity, and genetics. These eight risk factors served as submission categories for a call for abstracts as well as topics for the planned plenary sessions. In April 2020, we pivoted our approach when meeting in person for a conference was no longer feasible. Building upon the risk factor model, we shifted the invited talks to invited articles for publication as a special collection for FASEB BioAdvances. We are delighted to launch this collection with 13 invited articles by 32 experts from ten countries. Significant transferable lessons about key risk factors and prevention of NCDs from this collection could be leveraged in various geographic areas and in settings with varying levels of resources, as they cover a diverse range of topics from community‐level interventions to indigenous leadership structures to national policies to intergovernmental programs.

Trust is one of the big buzzwords in debates about the shaping of society, democracy, and emerging technologies. For example, one prominent idea put forward by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence appointed by the European Commission is that artificial intelligence should be trustworthy. In this essay, we explore the notion of trust and argue that both proponents and critics of trustworthy AI have flawed pictures of the nature of trust. We develop an approach to understanding trust in AI that does not conceive of trust merely as an accelerator for societal acceptance of AI technologies. Instead, we argue, trust is granted through leaps of faith. For this reason, trust remains precarious, fragile, and resistant to promotion through formulaic approaches. We also highlight the significance of distrust in societal deliberation, as it is relevant to trust in various and intricate ways. Among the fruitful aspects of distrust is that it enables individuals to forgo technology if desired, to constrain its power, and to exercise meaningful human control.

Introduction The script concordance test (SCT) is a test of clinical decision-making (CDM) that compares the thought process of learners to that of experts to determine to what extent their cognitive 'scripts' align. Without understanding test-takers' cognitive process, however, it is unclear what influences their responses. The objective of this study was to gather response process validity evidence by studying the cognitive process of test-takers to determine whether the SCT tests CDM and what cognitive processes may influence SCT responses. Methods Cases from an SCT used in a national validation study were administered and semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with ten residents and five staff surgeons. A retrospective verbal probing technique was used. Data was independently analysed and coded by two analysts. Themes were identified as factors that influence SCT responses during the cognitive interview. Results Cognitive interviews demonstrated variability in CDM among test-takers. Consistent with dual process theory, test-takers relied on scripts formed through past experiences, when available, to make decisions and used conscious deliberation in the absence of experience. However, test-takers' response process was also influenced by their comprehension of specific terms, desire for additional information, disagreement with the planned management, underlying knowledge gaps and desire to demonstrate confidence or humility. Conclusion The rationale behind SCT answers may be influenced by comprehension, underlying knowledge and social desirability in addition to formed scripts and/or conscious deliberation. Having test-takers verbalise their rationale for responses provides a depth of assessment that is otherwise lost in the SCT's current format. With the improved ability to standardise CDM assessment using the SCT, consideration of test-makers improving the SCT construction process and combining the SCT question format with verbal responses may improve the use of the SCT for CDM assessment.

Agriculture now faces grand challenges, with crucial implications for the global future. These include the need to increase production of nutrient‐dense food, to improve agriculture's effects on soil, water, wildlife, and climate, and to enhance equity and justice in food and agricultural systems. We argue that certain politics of constructive collective action—and integral involvement of agricultural scientists in these politics—are essential for meeting grand challenges and other complex problems facing agriculture in the 21st century. To spur reflection and deliberation about the role of politics in the work of agricultural scientists, we outline these politics of constructive collective action. These serve to organize forceful responses to grand challenges through coordinated and cooperative action taken by multiple sectors of society. In essence, these politics entail (1) building bonds of affinity within a heterogenous network, (2) developing a shared roadmap for collective action, and (3) taking sustained action together. These emerging politics differ markedly from more commonly discussed forms of political activity by scientists, e.g., policy advisory, policy advocacy, and protest. We present key premises for our thesis, and then describe and discuss a politics of constructive collective action, the necessary roles of agricultural scientists, and an agenda for exploring and expanding their engagement in these politics.

Rather than exhibiting bias or open‐minded reasoning at baseline, we argue that information processing is motivated by whatever goals a context makes salient. Thus, if politics feels like debate, people will be motivated to argue for their side. If politics feels like deliberation, they will be motivated to seek consensus through open‐minded processing. Results from three experiments demonstrate: (1) Politics evokes thoughts similar to conflictual contexts and dissimilar from deliberative contexts. (2) Consequently, information labeled “political” primes the motivation to counterargue, leading to opinion polarization. Absent such labeling, no such motivation is evident, explaining why bias is common but not inherent to politics. (3) Despite this capacity for bias, people can be motivated to actively process and accept counterattitudinal information by simply making the value of open‐mindedness salient. This suggests open‐minded discourse is possible even absent motivation to evaluate information accurately. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research for political discourse.

In a randomized experiment in cooperation with two national parties competing in the 2013 congressional election in the Philippines, we estimate the causal effect on voting behavior of a town-hall style campaign in which candidates discuss their campaign platform with small groups of citizens. Keeping the parties’ platform fixed, we find that this “deliberative” style of campaigning has a positive effect on parties’ vote shares compared to the status quo, in which voters play a passive role. Consistent with the parties’ advocacy for underprivileged groups, we observe heterogeneous effects by income and gender. We show that the larger effect of town-hall meetings on women and poor voters arises because deliberative campaigns increase voters’ attention to parties’ platforms and change their attitudes on gender discrimination and poverty.

Politicians and scholars contend that governmental transparency reforms constrain politicians' capacity to negotiate and compromise in the pursuit of policy goals. However, existing research primarily emphasizes only that governments are strategic in adopting these reforms; whether lawmakers actually incur the alleged costs of transparency remains an open question. We investigate this issue in the context of American state legislatures, many of which have become exempt from "sunshine laws" in recent decades. Legislators justify these exemptions by claiming that transparency impedes deal-making and coalition-building, producing gridlock. We leverage variation in the timing of sunshine law adoptions and exemptions to identify their effect on legislative productivity, polarization, partisanship, policy change, and budget delay. Our analyses refute legislators' argument for opacity; we report precisely-estimated negligible and contradictory effects of sunshine law exposure. We conclude that transparency does not inhibit political compromise. Legislative deliberation is equally or perhaps more effective under open governance requirements.

Objective This article investigates the hypothesis, dating back to de Tocqueville and Mill, that deliberation helps make citizens more “public‐spirited,” increasing their support for policies that benefit the community, even at some possible cost to themselves. The hypothesis has previously occasioned much speculation but little empirical investigation. Methods We employ data from a series of regional Deliberative Polls in Texas, gathering random samples from seven different service areas for weekend‐long deliberations about the pros and cons of alternative energy choices. Confidential questionnaires were administered at time of recruitment and at the end of the weekend. Results The participants showed an increased willingness to pay for renewable energy, conservation, and to see to it that everyone’s basic needs are met. The contours of these results suggest that they should be taken as evidence of increased public‐spiritedness. Conclusion We provide new evidence in support of the venerable hypothesis that deliberation increases public‐spiritedness—among deliberation’s most important but hitherto least examined effects.

This paper tests the possibility of embedding the benefits of minipublic deliberation within a wider voting public. We test whether a statement such as those derived from a Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) can influence voters who did not participate in the pre-referendum minipublic deliberation. This experiment was implemented in advance of the 2018 Irish referendum on blasphemy, one of a series of social-moral referendums following the recommendations of a deliberative assembly. This is the first application of a CIR-style voting aid in a real world minipublic and referendum outside of the US and also the first application to what is principally a moral question. We found that survey respondents exposed to information about the minipublic and its findings significantly increased their policy knowledge. Further, exposing respondents to minipublic statements in favour and against the policy measure increased their empathy for the other side of the policy debate.

Many writers and organizations have postulated that health care facilities and providers may need to implement a "crisis standard of care" to deal with the exigent circumstances associated with the massive influx of patients infected with the novel coronavirus and suffering from COVID-19. There is a relative scarcity of critical resources, such as intensive care unit beds, emergency department beds, ventilators, personal protective equipment, and medications. Facilities can become overwhelmed. A crisis standard of care can act as a guidepost for rationing supplies and care, should that become necessary. However, that is not without danger. Health care facilities and providers should plan carefully and then act with due deliberation in implementing a crisis standard of care to mitigate or prevent future liability.

The article reviews intractability qualities and uses the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict as an example of the difficult conversations that characterize the conflict between competing groups. There are two typical research trends for analyzing group conflict. These are either a rational model or intractable conflict model. The rational model assumes that differences are over realistic issues such as scarce resources. The intractable model focuses on identity and emotions. Intractable conflicts are recalcitrant, nonrational, and particularly resistant to resolution. They generate difficult conversations. The argument here demonstrates how intractability establishes the descriptive conditions for difficult conversations about conflicts. These conditions are incommensurate cultural narratives, narrative particularity, existential threat, power differences, and delegitimization. Islam and the West and the Israelis and Palestinians are used as examples. Finally, such difficult divides must attend to five issues that ameliorate difficult conversations, namely, inclusion, maximization of arguments and reasons, controlling undue influences, dialogic equality, and the value of deliberation.

Purpose: Jurors swear to base their verdicts solely on the evidence presented at trial. Their recall of a trial during deliberation can, however, be inaccurate, exposing other jurors to misinformation about the trial. This study examined whether jurors who are exposed to misinformation during a simulated deliberation, where the misinformation supports the prosecution’s case, will misremember the misinformation as appearing during a trial and be more likely to reach a guilty verdict. It also examined whether allowing jurors to take notes during a trial, and refer to those notes throughout, stops these potentially harmful effects. Methods: One hundred and twenty-four participant jurors watched a murder trial. Half were allowed to take notes. They then read a transcript of a deliberation that either contained or did not contain six pieces of pro-prosecution misinformation. Afterwards they reached a verdict. Finally, they completed a source monitoring test that required indicating whether the misinformation, and actual trial information, appeared during the trial. Results: Jurors exposed to misinformation misremembered it as appearing during the trial. Those who misattributed the most misinformation to the trial were most likely to reach a guilty verdict. Note taking, and note access, did not prevent these effects. Conclusions: Jurors can make mistakes when recalling a trial during deliberation but the consequences of this were largely unknown. This study provides initial evidence that their mistakes may distort other jurors' recollection of the trial and bias their verdicts. Attempts to replicate these findings using live deliberations are encouraged to determine their generalisability.

Euthanasia or assisted dying (EAD) remains a highly contentious issue internationally. Although polls report that a majority New Zealanders support EAD, there are concerns about the framing of the polling questions, and that those responding to the questions do not know enough about the situations described, the options available and the potential implications of EAD policy. One way to address these concerns is through a citizens' jury, which is a method of learning how a group of people view an issue following informed deliberation. This citizens' jury was conducted to learn whether a group of 15 New Zealanders thought the law should be changed to allow some form of EAD and the reasons for their view, having been informed about the issue, heard arguments for and against, and having deliberated together. The jury met for two and a half days. They did not reach a consensus, but become polarized in their positions, with several changing their positions to either strong opposition or strong support. The reasons why people support or oppose EAD were not reducible to particular principles or arguments, but reflected an integrated assessment of a range of considerations, informed by personal priorities and experiences. These results suggest that views on EAD may change in response to informed deliberation that the EAD debate involves a range of value judgments and is not likely to be resolved through deliberation alone. These results may inform international debate on EAD policy.

Author(s): Landres, P; Hahn, BA; Biber, E; Spencer, DT | Abstract: Every year, the four federal agencies that manage designated wilderness in the United States receive proposals to implement small- and large-scale ecological restorations within the National Wilderness Preservation System. The combination of climate change with other landscape stressors is driving ecological restoration to be one of the single most important, challenging, and potentially litigious wilderness stewardship issues. In addition, different stakeholders may have strongly divergent views about what the right decision should be, and decisions need to go beyond routine technical and scientific analyses to incorporate a broader range of legal and ethical considerations. We present a framework based on a comprehensive, structured set of scientific, legal, and ethical questions to guide the evaluation of proposals for ecological restoration and other types of ecological intervention in wilderness. This framework of questions is a voluntary tool designed to increase communication and transparency among scientists, managers, and interested publics regarding the trade-offs and uncertainties of ecological restoration, and promote informed public deliberation in managing the public resource of wilderness.

Context Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are becoming widespread since they are relatively inexpensive and offer important benefits for healthcare decision‐making, can also present practical, ethical, and legal challenges. One such challenge involves managing “pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings” (PCT‐CFs), or information emerging in a PCT that is unrelated to the primary research question(s), yet may have implications for individual patients, clinicians, or health care systems from whom or within which data were collected. The expansion of PCTs makes it likely healthcare systems will increasingly encounter PCT‐CFs, yet little guidance exists regarding their appropriate management. Methods We conducted semi‐structured interviews with key stakeholders experienced in the conduct or oversight of PCTs and those in health system leadership. Interviews explored respondents' experience with PCTs and PCT‐CFs, and actual or hypothetical reactions to PCT‐CF management. We used standard methods of qualitative analysis to identify key themes. Findings Forty‐one stakeholders participated. Four key themes emerged. First, discussions of PCT‐CFs are complicated by layers of ambiguity related to both the nature of PCTs themselves, and unanticipated results that emanate from them. Second, management of PCT‐CFs is context‐specific, and not amenable to a “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach. Third, there was a wide diversity of attitudes regarding the scope of researcher responsibilities in PCTs. Fourth, PCT‐CFs had generally not been previously considered by respondents, but there was widespread belief in the importance of prospective planning to anticipate such issues in future PCTs. Conclusions PCT‐CFs are likely to increase, yet those charged with PCT‐CF decision‐making and their disclosure are unlikely to have experience with these issues. Further deliberation about the ethical obligations and implementation processes regarding PCT‐CFs is needed. To enhance the likelihood of developing sound policies and practices, such deliberations should include the input and perspectives of key stakeholders in PCTs, including professionals, policy makers, and patients.

Although it was written with the specific intention of analyzing the gun debate through a rhetorical, academic lens, the lessons in I After Gun Violence i can be applied outside of the ivory tower and more broadly to issues beyond gun violence. Dishearteningly, gun violence has become commonplace in America: there are more mass shootings here than anywhere else on earth, the gun homicide rate is over 25 times greater than in other high-income countries, and the gun suicide rate is 8 times greater. The United States' prioritization of individual liberty has become increasingly conspicuous in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and politicization of wearing masks. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of World Medical & Health Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Building on an illustrative case of a systemic environmental threat and its multi‐stakeholder response, this paper draws attention to the changing political impacts of corporations in the digital age. Political Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) theory suggests an expanded sense of politics and corporations, including impacts that may range from voluntary initiatives to overcome governance gaps, to avoiding state regulation via corporate political activity. Considering digitalization as a stimulus, we explore potential responsibilities of corporations toward public goods in contexts with functioning governments. We show that digitalization—in the form of transparency, surveillance, and data‐sharing—offers corporations’ scope for deliberative public participation. The starry sky beetle infestation endangering public and private goods is thereby used to illustrate the possibility of expanding the political role of corporations in the digital sphere. We offer a contribution by conceptualizing data‐deliberation as a Habermasian variation of PCSR, defined as the (a) voluntary disclosure of corporate data and its transparent, open sharing with the public sector (b) along with the cooperation with governmental institutions on data analytics methods for examining large‐scale datasets (c) thereby complying with existing national and international regulations on data protection, in particular with respect to privacy and personal data.

The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision‐making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi‐structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co‐payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.

While there is abundant research on common law jury systems, we know less about lay participation in civil law crime trials, often called ‘mixed courts’ or alternately ‘mixed tribunals'. Here, a professional judge and a number of lay judges deliberate together on the issues of guilt and sentencing. This joint deliberation has naturally led both public opinion and research to focus on power relations such as lay judges’ dependence on the professional judges. Based on an ethnographic study of deliberation processes, the present article offers a different perspective on lay judges’ contribution and argues that their decision making rests on a hybrid construction of knowledge in the continuous interaction between the professional judge and lay participants during deliberation. The analysis of this decision‐making process contributes to our understanding of how ordinary people selected for this civic duty create knowledge about justice.

Background Consent rates for postmortem (PM) examination in the perinatal and paediatric setting have dropped significantly in the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Western Europe. We explored the factors that act as facilitators or barriers to consent and identified processes and practices that support parental decision‐making. Methods A qualitative study conducted with bereaved parents, parent advocates, and health care professionals in the United Kingdom. Analysis was conducted on 439 free‐tect comments within a cross‐sectional survey, interviews with a subset of 20 survey respondents and 25 health professionals, and a focus group with five parent advocates. Results Three broad parental decision‐making groups were identified: 1, “Not open to postmortem examination”; 2, “Consent regardless of concerns”; and 3, “Initially undecided.” Decisional drivers that were particularly important for this “undecided” group were “the initial approach,” “adjustment and deliberation,” “detailed discussion about the procedure,” and “formal consent.” The way in which these were managed by health care staff significantly impacted whether those parents' consented to PM, particularly for those who are ambivalent about the procedure. Conclusions We propose a set of recommendations to improve the way PM counselling and consent is managed. Adopting such measures is likely to lead to improved family experience and more consistent and high‐quality discussion regarding PM., What's already known about this topic? There has been a significant decline in uptake of paediatric post mortem, despite evidence that it provides clinically useful data in between 22% and 76% of cases. What does this study add? This study identifies key actions by health care staff that are highly influential in whether or not parents' consent to the postmortem procedure. Recommendations for practice are also provided.

In this paper, we examine healthcare organizations' responses to high profile cases of doctor-parent disagreement. We argue that, once a conflict crosses a certain threshold of public interest, the stakes of the disagreement change in important ways. They are no longer only the stakes of the child's interests or who has decision-making authority, but also the stakes of public trust in healthcare practitioners and organizations and the wide scale spread of medical misinformation. These higher stakes call for robust organization-level responses. There are responsible and thoughtful ways for healthcare organizations to directly engage with these cases. Hospitals should seek an alliance with the parents around the goal of public discussion and utilize web-based platforms to provide the public with information about medical conditions, experimental treatments, and how clinical ethics deliberation in hospitals works. We outline five important lessons for healthcare organizations to keep in mind when responding to such cases. Approached with care, these cases could become "teachable moments" for both healthcare organizations and society.

Young people aged between 12 and 17 across three major British cities — London, Leeds and Nottingham — were invited to play the role of ‘jurors’ on a case where ‘the Internet was put on trial’. The recommendations reported in this paper are intended to improve digital experience and online safety as contributions to policy. These recommendations derive from the ‘youth jurors’ policy deliberations designed to encourage young people to reflect on their digital experience and collectively develop their own problem definitions and solutions.

Objective Emotions in deliberative democratic practices have been of interest to researchers and practitioners of democracy for years. Yet, scholars have not fully analyzed emotions in this context. We advance this discussion in terms of both data collection and analysis with respect to Citizens' Initiative Reviews (CIRs) in Arizona, Oregon, and Massachusetts in 2016. We respond to four central research questions: (1) What discrete emotions do participants report experiencing during mini‐public deliberation? (2) How do the reported emotions vary across the period of deliberation? (3) How do the expressed emotions affect the deliberation? and (4) What work do expressed emotions do in mini‐publics in terms of helping or hindering deliberation? Methods To ensure a comprehensive analysis of the data we were able to collect, we employ a mixed‐methods design and use both quantitative and qualitative methods. Results and Conclusion Ultimately, we contend that the activities and tasks of the group, as well as the behaviors of participants and relationships among them, are all important factors that shape how people experience emotion, but that the CIR procedures have the greatest influence in mediating emotions to serve the ends of deliberation in these mini‐publics.

According to Parfit one of the main weaknesses of subjectivism is its inability to account for our intuition that future reasons have present authority. Parfit is only partly right about the contours of our intuition however he does have a point: sometimes our future reasons do have authority in current deliberation. Subjectivists who grappled with his challenge have organized themselves along two battle lines: those who think that only current desires are fundamental sources of reasons and those who think that future desires are also fundamental sources of reasons. I belong to the first camp but I believe that focusing on the question of fundamentality obscures the real issue. The key to addressing Parfit’s challenge is to shift our focus to a different question. We should ask ourselves what are the best policies to adopt towards our future reasons. Using resources developed by Bratman and Raz, and building on the insight that we often fail to recognize our true current concerns, I argue that we are sometimes justified in thinking of, and therefore treating, our future reasons as having present authority.