Healthcare professions are known to be inherently moral. They confront on a daily basis essential ethical problems. However, my experience as a nurse shows a different reality. In practice healthcare professionals often have difficulty to even identify the ethical problem before attempting to resolve the situation. In a plethora of literature moral case deliberation (MCD) is discussed as method to address these limitations of healthcare professionals. In general MCD can be defined as a discussion with the different parties involved about the ethical issues of a real case in clinical practice. In order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of MCD I identified MCD's main features and reviewed two methods (Clinical pragmatism and the Hermeneutic method) as examples. This review  unfolded certain assumed normative ideas more or less common in many models of MCD. However it is unclear how to understand these normative ideas and as to whether they should indeed guide MCD. Throughout the thesis I concentrate on some of these assumptions. I focused on the three, which I considered the most relevant for the implementation of MCD into clinical practice: 1) the involvement of everyone concerned the case, 2) consensus as an ideal within MCD and 3) MCD improves decision making. The aim of the thesis was to reflect on how these assumptions could be reasonably understood and to outline remaining ambiguities and points for critique in their application within MCD. Hence I am not arguing whether MCD should be part of clinical practice or not, I am critically reviewing the process of MCD within clinical practice. Finally, in the thesis it is illustrated that for each assumption various plausible explanations are possible, which all might have a role in practice. The usefulness of MCD might depend on what relevance these explanations are given in practice.

Den opinionsbildande debattsidan Newsmill har anklagats i etablerad media för att vara en samlingsplats för högerradikala reaktionärer så väl som ett konkret hot mot demokratin. I huvudsak vilar anklagelserna på Newsmills funktion som en plats för medborgarjournalistiskt initiativ. Med de anklagelserna i åtanke var syftet med denna undersökning således att ta reda på huruvida denna medborgarjournalistik med tillhörande debattflora representerade ett offentligt rum för debatt där en deliberativ diskussion mellan jämlikar kunde äga rum, eller om kritiken är befogad. Utifrån temat integration ville vi sedermera ta reda på om diskussionen har ändrat karaktär över tid, mellan 2009 och 2012. Vi har därför utfört en kvantitativ analys för att i grova drag avgöra hur debatten på kommentarsfälten ser ut. Med hjälp av den kvantitativa undersökningen har vi därefter bedrivit en kvalitativ analys av ett snävare urval artiklar med tillhörande kommentarer. Den kvalitativa innehållsanalysen utfördes med ett diskursanalytiskt perspektiv och stödde sig på två huvudsakliga riktningar för demokratisk teoribildning. Dels är det den deliberativa modellen, som definierad av Jürgen Habermas och John Rawls, och på andra sidan Chantal Mouffes teori om en pluralistisk agonism. Undersökningens resultat visar att den diskussion som förs mellan artiklarna och kommentarsfälten inte under någon av de två urvalsperioderna uppfyller alla de krav som den deliberativa diskussionsprocessen kräver av det offentliga rummet. Medan diskussionen under den första urvalsperioden tydde på ett starkt antagonistiskt förhållningssätt mellan olika politiska stånd och läger i sakfrågorna så tydde resultatet i den andra urvalsperioden på en viss utveckling mot en rättvisare diskussion som mer lutade åt en agonism mellan meningsmotståndarna. Gemensamt för båda perioder var ett visst hinder för hemsidan som en fungerande offentlighet i och med ett antal utbredda föreställningar om en hegemonisk makt besutten av sittande politik och etablerad media som förhindrar åsiktsvariationer.

Syftet med detta arbete har varit att belysa i vilken mån deliberativa samtal eller deliberativa inslag förekommer i undervisningen och om det i så fall kan vara en väg att lösa skolans dubbla uppdrag avseende kunskaps- och demokratiuppdraget. Fallstudien har genomförts vid en gymnasieskola, där ett arbetslag från industriprogrammet och ett från samhällsprogrammet har medverkat i dels en öppen enkät, dels i en fokusgruppsdiskussion. Studien visar att deliberativa samtal och deliberativa inslag förkommer i varierande grad i undervisningen, vilket ger underlag för att dra vissa slutsatser. Resultatet visar övervägande positiva effekter genom elevernas ökade engagemang, ett förbättrat klassrumsklimat, en ökad kvalité på undervisningen, elevernas positiva personliga utveckling samt underlättandet för utveckling av en demokratisk kompetens. Svårigheter som kan identifieras med arbetssättet är elevers bristande språkkompetens, elever utan samtals och diskussionstradition, tidsbrist och avsaknaden av metoden genom hela skoltiden.

<p>Syftet med detta arbete har varit att belysa i vilken mån deliberativa samtal eller deliberativa inslag förekommer i undervisningen och om det i så fall kan vara en väg att lösa skolans dubbla uppdrag avseende kunskaps- och demokratiuppdraget. Fallstudien har genomförts vid en gymnasieskola, där ett arbetslag från industriprogrammet och ett från samhällsprogrammet har medverkat i dels en öppen enkät, dels i en fokusgruppsdiskussion. Studien visar att deliberativa samtal och deliberativa inslag förkommer i varierande grad i undervisningen, vilket ger underlag för att dra vissa slutsatser. Resultatet visar övervägande positiva effekter genom elevernas ökade engagemang, ett förbättrat klassrumsklimat, en ökad kvalité på undervisningen, elevernas positiva personliga utveckling samt underlättandet för utveckling av en demokratisk kompetens. Svårigheter som kan identifieras med arbetssättet är elevers bristande språkkompetens, elever utan samtals och diskussionstradition, tidsbrist och avsaknaden av metoden genom hela skoltiden.</p>

From 1978 on there have been a series of legislative acts that have placed substantial protectionist burdens on the American taxpayer to provide incentives, credits and mandates for the production and use of ethanol under the rationale of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil while purporting to economically benefit the American economy and strengthening American security. While there has been much discussion about the economic benefits of ethanol policy, there is growing literature suggesting that in addition to being neither economically nor environmentally beneficial, ethanol policy may not be achieving its intended goals. Connection between political contributions, policy formation, and the actual outcomes of the enacted policies does not appear to have been addressed. Throughout the course of ethanol policy development the narrow interests of some stakeholders may have been met at the expense of others. Given the very large economic and social costs of ongoing ethanol subsidies and mandates an exploration of such a nexus would be illuminating and valuable. Hence the question of this research will be: Has the ethanol energy policy of the United States, as outlined in legislative actions, requiring subsidies and mandates from taxpayers, been reflective of a deliberative democratic process that after taking into account the input and influence of various competing viewpoints has resulted in a beneficial national policy? Consequently have the policy outcomes of the legislative stakeholders matched the stated intentions of those involved in the deliberative debate that enacted it or, where have those objectives not been met? Research that can increase understanding of how such an important policy may have failed can inform policy deliberation in such diverse areas as agriculture, national security and energy policy while illuminating how and why such public policy was made. Examination of a policy created and continuing which may have failed the most basic cost benefit analysis and does very little to enhance national energy security could demonstrate how a distortion of the legislative process resulted in outcomes that differ markedly from the stated intentions of those who enacted the policy.

<p>Theorists of deliberative democracy maintain that genuine dialogue is premised on the mutual respect of participants, yet a great deal of what passes for civic discourse even in mature democracies takes place among political actors who avowedly do not respect one another. This dissertation investigates psychological obstacles to mutual respect, and mutual understanding, in an effort to enhance possibilities for democratic deliberation. It identifies two such obstacles in political narcissism and ressentiment, which it construes as pathologies of political judgment. More generally, the dissertation argues for a self-consciously hermeneutical and psychoanalytically informed approach to deliberation, one that seeks a deeper understanding of our interlocutors in deliberation so as to carry on a more fruitful dialogue with them. Accordingly, it argues that speech is distorted when it does not align with the subjective intent of the speaker, even when that intent is unconscious or unknown to him. It contends that a depth hermeneutical mode of deliberation is necessary to engage in genuine communicative action, and suggests a role for psychoanalytically informed rhetoric in deliberation. Finally, it offers a methodological sketch of what a depth hermeneutical approach might look like when applied not only toward understanding one’s interlocutor, but also toward offering justificatory arguments vis-à-vis the shared ethical traditions and discourses that give legitimacy to political action. It suggests we need to read between the lines of tradition to ensure that minority discourses are not overshadowed, just as we need to look beneath the explicit claims of our interlocutors if we wish to understand them.</p> / Dissertation

This ethnographically based study examines Swedish hunters' claims to victimhood through appeal to the term 'persecution'. Perceiving disenfranchisement, injustice and discrimination on the basis of wolf conservation policy, we present hunters' self-styled predicament as victimhood-claimants of persecution at the hands of a state that has been co-opted by a conservationist, pro-wolf agenda that systematically disenfranchises rural and hunting interests and lifestyles. Through the phenomenological accounts of hunter respondents, our paper takes seriously the hunters' perception of persecution and, likewise, considers the opposite case made by conservationists: that wolves have been, and continue to be, the real victims of persecution in the conflict. Nonetheless, we show that the persecution language as it is applied from opposing parties in the conflict is problematic inasmuch as it is focused around creating a moral panic and confusion among the Swedish public who are ultimately responsible, as a democratic body-politic, for assessing the legitimacy of claims to moral wrong-doing and legal redress for the wronged. Our case study joins scholarship that explores the pathologies of claims to victimization by populist rural interest groups in the context of controversial conservation directives.

No description available.

No description available.

A majority of conducted studies connected to democratic socialization and the party-political education has primary affected students in higher education. In this study I intend to find out how primary school teachers handle controversial issues in social science connected to the political parties.  The Swedish Democrats are by many perceived as a controversial party and while the school’s mission is to educate students to think independently another mission implies that certain views are not to be uttered if they stand contrary to the basic democratic values. The aim of this study is to obtain knowledge in and about the teachers view on the dilemma between the more nurturing assignment versus the knowledge assignment and in connection to this how they approach the Swedish Democrats in the classroom. For further immersion the research treats the following questions:   How do teachers view their own role as intermediaries in democratic education?   How to teachers portray the Swedish democrats in education? The survey was conducted by using qualitative interviews. Four primary school teachers who teach social science participated. The results showed that the Swedish Democrats was perceived as a controversial subject in the school as teachers sometimes felt difficulties to teach about this subject. The study also showed that teachers use different methods in the classroom when it comes to organizing the teaching of democracy, when it comes to both content and choice of teaching methods, which ultimately could affect how teachers directly or indirectly portray the Swedish Democrats.