BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-11 (2021)

BackgroundPatient advocacy organizations have an increasing influence on health policy and biomedical research, therefore, questions about the specific character of their responsibility arise: Can PAOs bear moral responsibility and, if so, to whom are they responsible, for what and on which normative basis? Although the concept of responsibility in healthcare is strongly discussed, PAOs particularly have rarely been systematically analyzed as morally responsible agents. The aim of the current paper is to analyze the character of PAOs’ responsibility to provide guidance to themselves and to other stakeholders in healthcare.MethodsResponsibility is presented as a concept with four reference points: The subject, the object, the addressee and the underlying normative standard. This four-point relationship is applied to PAOs and the dimensions of collectivity and prospectivity are analyzed in each reference point.ResultsUnderstood as collectives, PAOs are, in principle, capable of intentionality and able to act and, thus, fulfill one prerequisite for the attribution of moral responsibility. Given their common mission to represent those affected, PAOs can be seen as responsible for patients’ representation and advocacy, primarily towards a certain group but secondarily in a broader social context. Various legal and political statements and the bioethical principles of justice, beneficence and empowerment can be used as a normative basis for attributing responsibility to PAOs.ConclusionsThe understanding of responsibility as a four-point relation incorporating collective and forward-looking dimensions helps one to understand the PAOs’ roles and responsibilities better. The analysis, thus, provides a basis for the debate about PAOs’ contribution and cooperation in the healthcare sector.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-021-00680-w
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,908
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Collective Intentions and Actions.John Searle - 1990 - In Philip R. Cohen Jerry Morgan & Martha Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press. pp. 401-415.
Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments.R. Jay Wallace - 2002 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (3):680-681.
Responsibility Incorporated.Philip Pettit - 2007 - Ethics 117 (2):171-201.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Collective Responsibility: Organizations as Organic Entities.Robert Albin - 2016 - Open Journal of Philosophy 6 (4):392-405.
Collective Responsibility.H. D. Lewis - 1948 - Philosophy 23 (84):3 - 18.
Collective Responsibility.Marion Smiley - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Autonomy and Responsibility in the Practice of Journalism.Aaron Quinn - 2008 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):117-132.
Debating Collective Responsibility.Elizabeth S. Piliero - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:175-186.


Added to PP index

Total views
1 ( #1,537,838 of 2,497,712 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,657 of 2,497,712 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes