» Articles » PMID: 23404541

Finding Their Voices Again: a Media Project Offers a Floor for Vulnerable Patients, Clients and the Socially Deprived

Overview
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2013 Feb 14
PMID 23404541
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

'DU bist Radio' (DBR) is an award winning [DBR has been awarded with the "Catholic Media Award of the German Bishops Conference, Prädikat WERTvoll" (2011), the Suisse "Media Prize Aargau/Solothurn" (2010), the German "Alternative Media Award" (2009) and was nominated for the "Prix Europa" (2009)] monthly radio format that goes on air on three Swiss radio stations. The purpose of this program which was first broadcast in 2009 is the development of a new media format which--without applying any journalistic (or other) filter and influence--conveys authenticity of expression amongst society's most vulnerable fellow citizens such as patients, clients and the socially deprived. So-called marginal groups are encouraged to speak for themselves, as a possible paradigm case for encouraging the inclusion of patients' and relatives' "unfiltered" voices in general and in clinical ethics as well. Before handing over the microphone to the groups in focus, a team of journalists, educated in medical ethics, over a period of 4 days, teaches them on-site radio skills and craft. Once this task is completed and the actual production of the broadcast begins, the media crew does not exert any influence whatsoever on the content of the 1-h program. Thus, the final product is solely created and accounted for by the media-inexperienced participants, leading to unforeseen and often surprising results. It is discussed that the DBR approach of fostering authenticity of expression can serve as an enhancement to today's respect and autonomy oriented field of medical ethics.

References
1.
Stutzki R, Schneider U, Reiter-Theil S, Weber M . Attitudes Toward Assisted Suicide and Life-Prolonging Measures in Swiss ALS Patients and Their Caregivers. Front Psychol. 2012; 3:443. PMC: 3481003. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00443. View

2.
Frojd C, Swenne C, Rubertsson C, Gunningberg L, Wadensten B . Patient information and participation still in need of improvement: evaluation of patients' perceptions of quality of care. J Nurs Manag. 2011; 19(2):226-36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01197.x. View

3.
Schicktanz S, Schweda M, Wynne B . The ethics of 'public understanding of ethics'--why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients' voices. Med Health Care Philos. 2011; 15(2):129-39. PMC: 3319876. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-011-9321-4. View

4.
Reiter-Theil S . What does empirical research contribute to medical ethics? A methodological discussion using exemplary studies. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2012; 21(4):425-35. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180112000205. View

5.
Glick P, Yamout S . Social media for surgeons: understand it, embrace it, and leverage it for our profession and our patient. Surgery. 2012; 152(5):941-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.06.033. View