Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Humans (2) (remove)
Institute
Begutachtungsstatus
- peer-reviewed (2)
Physical inactivity is a problem in Europe, contributing to various non-communicable diseases (NCDs). While health sciences offer data and models for preventing the development of NCDs through health promotion, they do not explain the dynamics between the different institutions and actors in the health field. Neofunctionalism refers to these different actors and suggests that their interaction leads to the construction of a supranational authority, allowing the actors to cooperate on common policies, rules and institutions, resulting in integration and Europeanization. Indeed, there are a variety of European Union (EU) institutions and policies concerned with physical activity (PA), however, the purpose of this paper is to analyze if Europeanization and integration are happening in PA promotion, through the lens of neofunctionalism. Analysis uses process tracing for investigating the emergence of PA on the EU agenda, the legal background, existing policies and institutions. Findings indicate that Europeanization and integration of PA promotion are happening, although the opportunity for actions of the EU are restricted to voluntary actions of the EU Member States due to the agreements in the Treaty of Lisbon. This only allows the EU institutions to apply soft law approaches on PA promotion, which seems to be implemented in some Member States despite its non-binding character. The findings are discussed and further implications for public health professionals and policies outlined.
The progress of medical genetics leads to a significant increase in genetic knowledge and a vast expansion of genetic diagnostics. However, it is still unknown how these changes will be integrated into medical practice and how they will change patients' and healthy persons' perception and evaluation of genetic diagnoses and genetic knowledge. Therefore, we carried out a comprehensive questionnaire survey with more than 500 patients, clients seeking genetic counseling, health care staff, and healthy persons (N = 523). The questionnaire survey covered detailed questions on the value of genetic diagnoses for the different groups of study participants, the right to know or not to know genetic diagnoses, possible differences between genetic and other medical diagnoses, and the practical use and implications of genetic knowledge with a special focus on hereditary neuropsychiatric diseases. A huge majority of the participants (90.7%) stated to have a right to learn every aspect of her or his genetic make-up. Similarly, study participants showed high interest (81.8%) in incidental health care findings-independent of whether the diseases are treatable or not. One can derive from the data outcome that study participants did not follow the implications of a "genetic exceptionalism" and often considered genetic findings as equivalent in relation to other medical diagnoses.