Human Dignity as Leading Principle in Public Health Ethics: A Multi-Case Analysis of 21st Century German Health Policy Decisions

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Faculty of Medicine, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany

2 Centre for Public Health Care, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany

Abstract

Background
There is ample evidence that since the turn of the millennium German health policy made a considerable step towards prevention and health promotion, putting the strategies of ‘personal empowerment’ and ‘settings based approach’ high on the federal government’s agenda. This phenomenon has challenged the role of ethics in health policy. Concurrently, increasing relevance of the Concept of Human Dignity for health and human rights has been discussed. However, a direct relationship between Human Dignity and Public Health Ethics (PHE) has surprisingly not yet been established.
 
Methods
We here conduct a systematic ethical analysis of eminent German health prevention policy case-examples between the years 2000–2016. Specifically, our analysis seeks to adapt and apply the principalism (autonomy, beneficence, justice)-based Concept of Human Dignity of Italian philosopher Corrado Viafora, contextualizing it with the emerging field of PHE. To further inform this health policy analysis, index databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) were searched to include relevant published and grey literature.
 
Results
We observe a systematic approach of post-millennial health policy decisions on prevention and on defined health targets in Germany, exemplified by (1) the fostering of the preparedness against pandemic infectious diseases, (2) the development and implementation of the first cancer vaccination, (3) major legal provisions on non-smokers protection in the public domain, (4) acts to strengthen long term care (LTC) as well as (5) the new German E-Health legislation. The ethical analysis of these health prevention decisions exhibits their profound ongoing impact on social justice, probing their ability to meet the underlying Concept of Human Dignity in order to fulfill the requirements of the principle of non-maleficence.
 
Conclusion
The observed health policy focus on prevention and health promotion has sparked new public debates about the formation of/compliance with emerging standards of PHE in Germany. We believe that the overall impact of this novel policy orientation will gradually show over mid- and long-term periods, both in terms of improvements in health system performance and concurrently in diagnostics, therapies and health outcome on individual patient level. The Concept of Human Dignity may soon play an even greater role in European PHE debates to come.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. ECDC. ECDC, European Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/Pages/home.aspx.  Accessed August 1, 2016.
  2. The Global Fund. The Global Fund. 2016. http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/.  Accessed August 1, 2016.
  3. Illingworth P, Parmet WE. The ethical implications of the social determinants of health: a global renaissance for bioethics. Bioethics. 2009;23(2):ii-v. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00719.x
  4. OECD/European Commission. OECD/European Commission conference “Improving Health-System Efficiency: Achieving Better Value for Money”; Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=754&langId=en&eventsId=106&furtherEvents=yes.
  5. Schneider N, Schwartz FW. Demographic changes: discussing the data and the consequences for health and morbidity in Germany. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2007;15(6):481-483. doi:10.1007/s10389-007-0111-7
  6. Seike A. An economic analysis of age discrimination: the impact of mandatory retirement and age limitations in hiring on the utilization of human resources in an ageing society. In: Aging in Advanced Industrial States. Vol 3. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010:311-324. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3553-0_13
  7. OECD. Health at a Glance: Europe 2014. OECD; 2014.
  8. Lee LM. Public health ethics theory: review and path to convergence. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(1):85-98. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00648.x
  9. Winter SF. Health and Human Rights. Report from the European Conference; Strasbourg, Council of Europe, France; March 15-16, 1999.
  10. Macklin R. Dignity is a useless concept. BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1419-1420. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1419
  11. Macklin R. Reflections on the human dignity symposium: Is dignity a useless concept? Journal of Palliative Care. 2004;20:212-216.
  12. Killmister S. Dignity: not such a useless concept. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(3):160-164. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.031393
  13. Schroeder D. Dignity: two riddles and four concepts. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17(2):230-238. doi:10.1017/S0963180108080262
  14. Kirchhoffer DG. Bioethics and the demise of the concept of human dignity: has medicine killed ethics? Hum Reprod Genet Ethics. 2011;17(2):141-154. doi:10.1558/hrge.v17i2.141
  15. Kirchhoffer DG, Dierickx K. Human dignity and human tissue: a meaningful ethical relationship? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(9):552-556. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.041509
  16. Kirchhoffer DG. Human Dignity in Contemporary Ethics. Teneo Press; 2013.
  17. Kirchhoffer DG. Human dignity and human enhancement: a multidimensional approach. Bioethics. 2017;31(5):375-383. doi:10.1111/bioe.12343
  18. Matthews P. Human dignity in contemporary ethics by David G. kirchhoffer, teneo press, new York, 2013, pp. XII + 356, £16.00, pbk. New Blackfriars. 2015;96(1061):122-124. doi:10.1111/nbfr.12103_9
  19. UNESCO. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13177&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Published 1997.
  20. Council of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/164. Published 1997.
  21. Reichlin M. The Sanctity / Quality of Life and the Ethics of Respect for Persons. Croat J Philos. 2002;2(1):37-54.
  22. Mordacci R. Una Introduzione Alle Teorie Morali: Confronto Con La Bioetica. Feltrinelli Editore; 2003.
  23. Winter SF, Fuchs C. Medizinische Forschung und Klinik - Von Menschenbild und Menschenwürde (Medical Research and Clinics – Human Image and Human Dignity). Dt Ärzteblatt. 2000;97(6):A-301-306.
  24. Furlan E. Bioetica e dignit{à} umana: interpretazioni a confronto a partire dalla Convenzione di Oviedo. 2009.
  25. Viafora C. Unteilbare Würde – eine Analyse der bioethischen Verflechtungen der Charta der grundsätzlichen Rechte der Europäischen Union. Medizin und Ideol. 2002;3:8-12.
  26. Viafora C. A methodology for the ethical analysis of clinical practice based on the respect for human dignity: a theoretical frame. University of Padova; 2011.
  27. Dekkers W, Gordijn B. The broader context of medical ethics. Med Heal Care Philos. 2008;11(3):253-254. doi:10.1007/s11019-008-9149-8
  28. Jones DA. Human dignity in healthcare: a virtue ethics approach. New Bioeth. 2015;21(1):87-97. doi:10.1179/2050287715Z.00000000059.
  29. Gracia D. History of Medical Ethics. In: Ten Have H, Gordijn B, eds. Bioethics in the European Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001:17-50.
  30. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press; 2013.
  31. Winter S, Apitz R. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung als Ziele nachhaltiger Gesundheitspolitik in Deutschland. 2003.
  32. Apitz R, Winter SF. Potenziale und Ansätze der Prävention - Aktuelle Entwicklungen in Deutschland. Internist (Berl). 2004;45(2):139-147. doi:10.1007/s00108-003-1136-9
  33. Winter S. Eckpunkte der Prävention in der Gesundheitspolitik. Bundesgesundheitsblatt GesundheitsforschGesundheitsschutz. 2005;48(5):599-603. doi:10.1007/s00103-005-1044-3
  34. Bismarck F v. Gesetz, betreffend die Krankenversicherung der Arbeiter. Vol 15. Jahrbücher für Natl und Stat; 1883.
  35. Parlamentarischer Rat. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. I. Die Grundrechte. Artikel 1 (1). 1949. http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/gg_01/245122.
  36. Wehkamp K-H. [Public health ethics. Necessity and discourse in Germany]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008;51(2):119-126. doi:10.1007/s00103-008-0440-x
  37. Schröder-Bäck P, Sass H-M, Brand H, Winter SF. Ethische Aspekte eines Influenzapandemiemanagements und Schlussfolgerungen für die Gesundheitspolitik - ein Überblick. [Ethical aspects of a pandemic influenza management and conclusions for health policy. An overview]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz. 2008;51(2):191-199. doi:10.1007/s00103-008-0449-1
  38. Vetlesen AJ. Perception, Empathy, and Judgment: An Inquiry Into the Preconditions of Moral Performance. Penn State University Press; 1994.
  39. Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. 1997.
  40. European Parliament. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm. Published 2000.
  41. Michael L. Defining dignity and its place in human rights. New Bioeth. 2014;20(1):12-34.
  42. Bales S, Baumann H, Schnitzler N. Infektionsschutzgesetz - Kommentar Und Vorschriftensammlung. [Infection Protection Law – Commentary and Collection of Regulations]. 2001.
  43. Sass H-M. Competent Care for Personal Health. In: Cultures in Bioethics. LIT Verlag Münster; 2016:130.
  44. Nolte E, McKee M. Caring for People With Chronic Conditions: A Health System Perspective. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2008.
  45. Nolte E, Knai C, Hofmarcher M, et al. Overcoming fragmentation in health care: chronic care in Austria, Germany and The Netherlands. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7(1):125-146. doi:10.1017/S1744133111000338
  46. Kröger C, Mons U, Klärs G, Orth B, Maschewsky-Schneider U, Lampert T. [Assessing the health target; Reduce tobacco consumption]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010;53(2):91-102. doi:10.1007/s00103-009-1016-0
  47. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). The Preventive Health Care Act. http://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/en/prevention/the-preventive-health-care-act.html.  Accessed December 20, 2016. Published 2015.
  48. Aluttis C, Van den Broucke S, Chiotan C, Costongs C, Michelsen K, Brand H. Public health and health promotion capacity at national and regional level: a review of conceptual frameworks. J Public health Res. 2014;3(1):199. doi:10.4081/jphr.2014.199
  49. Sundmacher L, Fischbach D, Schuettig W, Faisst C. Which hospitalisations are ambulatory care-sensitive; to what degree; and how could the rates be reduced? Results of a group consensus study in Germany. Health Policy. 2015;119(11):1415-1423. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.007
  50. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Germany. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2015.
  51. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. The ethics weathervane. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:58. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0054-4
  52. Sass HM. The clinic as a good corporate neighbor. Croat Med J. 2013;54(1):78-82.
  53. Kliche T, Koch U, Lehmann H, Töppich J. Evidenzbasierte Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung [The development of evidence-based prevention – Health promotion and education as an approach to continuous quality improvement]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz. 2006;49(2):141-150. doi:10.1007/s00103-005-1216-1
  54. Kelly MP, Heath I, Howick J, Greenhalgh T. The importance of values in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):69. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0063-3
  55. Hannover Medical School. Public Health Ethics. Scientific methods, foundational concepts, and case analyses - An interdisciplinary European conference for young scholars. 2011.
  56. Kilbourne ED. Influenza Pandemics of the 20th Century. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(1):9-14. doi:10.3201/eid1201.051254
  57. Miller MA, Viboud C, Balinska M, Simonsen L. the signature features of influenza pandemics — implications for policy. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(25):2595-2598. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0903906
  58. zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses and cancer: from basic studies to clinical application. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(5):342-350. doi:10.1038/nrc798
  59. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/#.  Accessed January 1, 2016. Published 2008.
  60. zur Hausen H. The search for infectious causes of human cancers: Where and why. Virology. 2009;392(1):1-10. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2009.06.001
  61. Kranz LM, Diken M, Haas H, et al. Systemic RNA delivery to dendritic cells exploits antiviral defence for cancer immunotherapy. Nature. 2016;534(7607):396-401. doi:10.1038/nature18300
  62. Deleré Y. Die Impfung gegen HPV: Empfehlungen im europäischen Vergleich (Leitthema). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 52(11):1065-1068.
  63. Roggendorf H, others. Preliminary experiences with the acceptance of HPV vaccination. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkd. 2009;157(10):982-985.
  64. Sroczynski G, Schnell-Inderst P, Mühlberger N, et al. Entscheidungsanalytische Modellierung zur Evaluation der Langzeit-Effektivität und Kosten-Effektivität des Einsatzes der HPV-DNA-Diagnostik im Rahmen der Zervixkarzinomfrüherkennung in Deutschland. 2010.
  65. World Health Organization. 10 Facts on the Tobacco Epidemic and Global Tobacco Control. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tobacco_epidemic/tobacco_epidemic_facts/en/.  Published 2008.
  66. Mons U, Pötschke-Langer M. [Tobacco control politics in Germany. Evidence, success, and barriers]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010;53(2):144-151. doi:10.1007/s00103-009-1015-1
  67. Hurrelmann K, Laaser U, Razum O. Entwicklung und Perspektiven der Gesundheitswissenschaften in Deutschland Einleitung. In: Handbuch Gesundheitswissenschaften. 6th ed. Beltz Juventa Verlag; 2012.
  68. Diethelm P, McKee M, Bateman C, et al. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(1):2-4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
  69. Kuhn J. Gesundheitspolitik zwischen Evidenzbasierung und Bürgerorientierung. Ein Kommentar zu einem Fortschrittsdilemma. [Health Policy between Evidence-based Approaches and Citizen Orientation – a Comment to a Progress-Dilemma]. Prävention. 2009;3:88-92.
  70. Bundesverfassungsgericht. Urteil vom 30. Juli 2008 - 1 BvR 3262/07. 2008. http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20080730_1bvr326207.html.
  71. Bayerische Staatsregierung. Gesetz zum Schutz der Gesundheit (Gesundheitsschutzgesetz) (Law to protect health (Health protection act)). Bayer Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt. 2010:314–316.
  72. Kohler S, Minkner P. Smoke-free laws and direct democracy initiatives on smoking bans in Germany: a systematic review and quantitative assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(1):685-700. doi:10.3390/ijerph110100685
  73. Busse R, Blümel M. Germany: Health System Review. Health Syst Transit. 2014;16(2):1-296.
  74. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Das Pflege-Neuausrichtungs-Gesetz. Stand: Nach Der 3. Lesung Im Bundestag (Brochüre); 2012.
  75. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Das Erste Pflegestärkungsgesetz. http://www.bmg.bund.de/themen/pflege/pflegestaerkungsgesetze/pflegestaerkungsgesetz-i.html.  Accessed September 29, 2015. Published 2015.
  76. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Das Zweite Pflegestärkungsgesetz. http://www.bmg.bund.de/themen/pflege/pflegestaerkungsgesetze/pflegestaerkungsgesetz-ii.html.  Accessed September 29, 2015. Published 2015.
  77. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Germany’s Long Term Care Strengthening Acts. http://www.bmg.bund.de/en/long-term-care/first-act-to-strengthen-long-term-care.html.  Accessed August 1, 2016. Published 2016.
  78. gematik GmbH. For a Health-Care System with a Future. The Electronic Health Insurance Card. Berlin; 2012.
  79. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Act on secure digital communication and applications in the health care system (E-Health Act) - First reading of the E-Health Bill at the Bundestag. http://www.bmg.bund.de/en/health/e-health-act.html.  Accessed August 1, 2016. Published 2015.
  80. Bundestag. Gesetz Für Sichere Digitale Kommunikation Und Anwendungen Im Gesundheitswesen Sowie Zur Änderung Weiterer Gesetze. Deutscher Bundestag; 2015.
  81. McDougall C. Ethical Issues in Emerging Diseases. Bioethics Lecture Series; 2011.
  82. Robert Koch Institut. Nationaler Pandemieplan Teil III - Wissenschaftliche Zusammenhänge  Der Pandemieplanung in  Deutschland; 2007.
  83. Effertz T. Kosten des Rauchens in Deutschland [The cost of smoking in Germany]. Public Health Forum. 2016;24(2). doi:10.1515/pubhef-2016-0036.
  84. Walter U, Suhrcke M, Gerlich MG, Boluarte TA. The opportunities for and obstacles against prevention: the example of Germany in the areas of tobacco and alcohol. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):500. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-500
  85. Theobald H, Hampel S, Mansfeld T. Home Care in Germany. In: Living Independently at Home. SFI – The Danish National Centre for Social Research; 2011.
  86. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Entwurf eines Gesetzes für sichere digitale Kommunikation und Anwendungen im Gesundheitswesen. 18 Wahlperiode, Dtsch Bundestag; 2015.
  87. Baron J. Omission versus commission. In: Thinking and Deciding. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press; 2006:514.
  88. Norheim OF. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):75. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4
  89. Sørensen K, Pelikan JM, Röthlin F, et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(6):1053-1058. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv043
  90. Campbell JI, Eyal N, Musiimenta A, Haberer JE. Ethical questions in medical electronic adherence monitoring. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(3):338-342. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3502-4
  91. World Health Organization. Preventing Chronic Diseases : A Vital Investment : WHO Global Report; 2005.
  92. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Patientensicherheit in Deutschland stärken. 2016.
  93. Beauftragter der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Patientinnen und Patienten. Amt, Aufgabe und Befugnisse der oder des Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Patientinnen und Patienten. 2004.
  94. Cohen J, Ezer T. Human rights in patient care: a theoretical and practical framework. Health Hum Rights. 2013;15(2):7-19.
  95. Chan DK. The concept of human dignity in the ethics of genetic research. Bioethics. 2015;29(4):274-282. doi:10.1111/bioe.12102
  96. Severin F, Borry P, Cornel MC, et al. Points to consider for prioritizing clinical genetic testing services: a European consensus process oriented at accountability for reasonableness. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(6):729-735. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.190
  97. Galea S, Annas GJ. Public Health and Human Rights—Reply. JAMA. 2016;316(1):104. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5250
  98. Fotaki M. Why and how is compassion necessary to provide good quality healthcare? Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(4):199-201. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.66
  99. Gerhardus A, Breckenkamp J, Razum O. Evidence-based public health. Prevention and health promotion in the context of science, values and (vested) interests. Med Klin (Munich). 2008;103(6):406-412.
  100. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(5):371-376. doi:10.1038/nrg3218
  101. Gruskin S, Mills EJ, Tarantola D. History, principles, and practice of health and human rights. Lancet. 2007;370(9585):449-455.
  102. Harding K. Global Health Innovation Technology Models. Nanobiomedicine. 2016:3:7. doi:10.5772/62921.
  103. Verra SE, Kroeze R, Ruggeri K, et al. Facilitating safe and successful cross-border healthcare in the European Union. Health Policy. 2016;120(6):718-727. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.04.014