Methods of legitimation: How ethics committees decide which reasons count in public policy decision-making

Kyle T. Edwards

Social Science & Medicine, 2014, vol. 113, issue C, 34-41

Abstract: In recent years, liberal democratic societies have struggled with the question of how best to balance expertise and democratic participation in the regulation of emerging technologies. This study aims to explain how national deliberative ethics committees handle the practical tension between scientific expertise, ethical expertise, expert patient input, and lay public input by explaining two institutions' processes for determining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of reasons in public policy decision-making: that of the United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the United States' American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). The articulation of these ‘methods of legitimation’ draws on 13 in-depth interviews with HFEA and ASRM members and staff conducted in January and February 2012 in London and over Skype, as well as observation of an HFEA deliberation. This study finds that these two institutions employ different methods in rendering certain arguments legitimate and others illegitimate: while the HFEA attempts to ‘balance’ competing reasons but ultimately legitimizes arguments based on health and welfare concerns, the ASRM seeks to ‘filter’ out arguments that challenge reproductive autonomy. The notably different structures and missions of each institution may explain these divergent approaches, as may what Sheila Jasanoff (2005) terms the distinctive ‘civic epistemologies’ of the US and the UK. Significantly for policy makers designing such deliberative committees, each method differs substantially from that explicitly or implicitly endorsed by the institution.

Keywords: United Kingdom; United States; Assisted reproductive technologies; Expertise; Legitimacy; Ethics committee; Deliberative democracy; Patient and public involvement (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614002810
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:113:y:2014:i:c:p:34-41

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
http://www.elsevier. ... _01_ooc_1&version=01

DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.043

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian

More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().