Schicktanz, SilkeDusche, Michael2019-09-252019-09-252011-12-122011-070975-5691http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/181704"The concept of the “autonomy of science from the social institutions that legitimated it” may have become (or may have always been) an illusion, as science historian Dhruv Raina has pointed out (10). However, even falling short of complete autonomy, there are many ways in which ethics advice can be kept independent of political and vested interests without depriving the state of its ultimate prerogative to decide on normative issues regulating its social life. This is what the contributions assembled in this special issue make very clear. Thus, the dialogue between researchers, ethics committees and populations should be increased, scientific experts should be awarded special training in ethics before joining ethics committees, inter- and supra-national organisations should be involved in procedures of international moderation and consensus-building, and, finally, decisions over life and death should always be conducted in close dialogue with the community of concerned patients and the broader public. Since social rules, unlike natural laws, involve individual and collective interpretation, adaptation to local contexts, and cultural sensitivity, their enactment and enforcement necessitate a maximum of democratic participation at all levels."(pg 145)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderhealth ethicsethics of the sciencehealthcare policymedicineautonomyMethods of ethicsBioethicsSocial ethicsSexual orientation/genderMedical ethicsHealth ethicsArticle