The goal of democratic deliberation (DD) bioethics research is to elicit informed and considered opinions on ethically controversial issues. But the trustworthiness of DD outcomes depends on the quality of deliberations. We provide a framework to evaluate the quality of deliberations and apply that framework to a DD project on surrogate consent for dementia research involving randomly selected samples of the older general public. Using a mixed method approach, we found that participants were very satisfied with the sessions, learned and used new information, were respectful and collaborative, and were able to “reason together” to arrive at societal policy recommendations. Implications and limitations of the paper are also discussed.
AbelsonJ.ForestP. G.EylesJ.SmithP.MartinE., & GauvinF. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 239–251.
2.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2010). Reinvestment Act investments in comparative effectiveness research for a community forum. Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/cerfactsheets/cerfsforum.htm.
3.
ChafeR.MeraliF.LaupacisA.LevinsonW., & MartinD. (2010). Does the public think it is reasonable to wait for more evidence before funding innovative health technologies? The case of PET scanning in Ontario. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 26(2), 192–197.
4.
ChambersS. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.
5.
CornwallA. & ShanklandA. (2008). Engaging citizens: Lessons from building Brazil's national health system. Social Science and Medicine, 66(10), 2173–2184.
6.
CrosbyN. & NethercuttD. (2005). Citizens' Juries: Creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In GastilJ. & LevineP. (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 111–119). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
DanielsN. (2010). Accountability for reasonableness and the Citizens Council. In LittlejohnsP. & RawlinsM. (Eds.), Patients, the public and the priorities in health care (pp. 139–148). Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing.
8.
De VriesR.StanczykA.WallI. F.UhlmannR.DamschroderL. J., & KimS. Y. (2010). Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Social Science and Medicine, 70(12), 1896–1903.
9.
EdwardsP.HindmarshR.MercerH.BondM., & RowlandA. (2008). A three-stage evaluation of a deliberative event on climate change and transforming energy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), article 6. Retrieved from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art6/.
10.
EuroPolis Project. (2009). More informed voters select a parliament in unprecedented experiment. Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.europolis-project.eu/.
FishkinJ. S. (1997). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
FishkinJ. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
FleckL. M. (2007). Can we trust “democratic deliberation”?Hastings Center Report, 37(4), 22–25.
15.
GutmannA. & ThompsonD. (1997). Deliberating about bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 27(3), 38–41.
16.
KimS.WallI.StanczykA., & De VriesR. (2009). Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: Deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(4), 3–16.
17.
KimS. Y. H.KimH. M.KnopmanD. S.De VriesR.DamschroderL., & AppelbaumP. S. (in press). Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology.
18.
LukensmeyerC. J.GoldmanJ., & BrighamS. (2005). A town meeting for the twenty-first century. In GastilJ. & LevineP. (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 154–163). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
MelvilleK.WillinghamT. L., & DedrickJ. R. (2005). National issues forums: A network of communities promoting public deliberation. In GastilJ. & LevineP. (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 37–58). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
MittonC.SmithN.PeacockS.EvoyB., & AbelsonJ. (2009). Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy, 91(3), 219–228.
21.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Final report. Retrieved from http://www.bioethics.gov/.
22.
RoweG. & FrewerL. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.
23.
RoweG.MarshR., & FrewerL. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 29(1), 88–121.
24.
SteenbergenM.BachtigerA.SporndliM., & SteinerJ. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.
25.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), article 12. Retrieved from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/.
26.
ThompsonD. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.
TimotijevicL. & RaatsM. (2007). Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development. Health Policy, 82(3), 302–319.
29.
WeblerT.TulerS., & KruegerR. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435–450.
30.
WiseJ. (2010). NICE Citizens Council debates incentives for healthy behaviour. British Medical Journal, 340, c2747.
