Stay networked. Get informed. Broadcast your projects.
Grace posted some interesting ideas on Multistakeholderism yesterday, on which I've just commented.
On Friday last week I read the article referred to below on the BBC website. I noticed what appeared to be an important omission if we're considering "stakeholders" and reaching a sound decision based on discussion which includes all available perspectives. I would be interested to hear what other people think.
On 10th August on the BBC website I found this article by Daniel Sokol on ethics and Ebola. The first paragraph reads “A group of ethicists will meet on Monday at the World Health Organization to discuss the wisdom or otherwise of making an experimental drug more widely available to those suffering from Ebola.” The author describes the historical background to outbreaks of Ebola. He points out that “The norms of medical ethics, such as informed consent, may also be different there, and there is a danger in transposing Western norms into different cultures.” His penultimate paragraph says “A well-known saying in ethics is that "good ethics starts with good facts". Ideally, sitting around that table will be medical historians, anthropologists, clinicians, epidemiologists, logisticians and other specialists. Only then can a nuanced appreciation of the likely risks and benefits be determined.”
Viewing this in the light of the “multistakeholder model” I wonder where the people of West Africa are, the people on whose behalf these very important decisions are being made. Aren't they considered for a place at the table? The tone of the article suggests that even the list of experts that is proposed (see previous paragraph) may not be present. The final sentence is “Without this input from other disciplines and an understanding of the situation "on the ground", the views of the ethicists may be of limited practical value.”