Analyse eines Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahrens zu ethisch-politischen Fragen der Verteilung von Gesundheitsgütern- Vergelich der inhaltlichen Ergebnisse der Lübecker Konferenz mit einer kanadischen citizens jury zu diesem Themenkompomplex

Abstract

A consensus conference took place in Lübeck 2010 to the subject priority setting in health care. 20 citizens of different age and with heterogeneous educational backgrounds found out about priority setting in health care, discussed her convictions and experiences and wrote a common vote. Priority setting in health care was defined as a construct of thoughts which values and criteria in the medical care are really important, and which seem less important. From these considerations orders of rank of medical interventions and therapies can be compiled. This paper answered following questions: Can citizens have a good discourse about such a complicated subject like priority setting in health care? Which content results they have? Which meaning can these results have for the whole debate? The citizens had a successful discourse what is worked out in this paper on criterias of the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. With this method to analyse a consensus conference, a new way was walked within here. Moreover, it is shown with regard to the content discussion which important meaning the civil discourse has for the whole debate. The citizens have appealed to single new aspects. In the analysis appears that the Lübeck citizens put a main focus with values and criteria which concern the individual. The comparison of the content results of the Lübeck consensus conference with the content results of a Canadian Citizen jury to this subject complex shows many parallels and gives the instruction to the fact that a land-covering common will of citizens exists.