PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15186358

Birthing Sphere.

Abstract

This paper tells the story of the initiation and first year of Sphere. It traces the history of how the project was started and its relationship to other major events of that time, principally the multi-donor Rwanda evaluation. The paper describes how the basic structure of the Sphere standards was agreed upon and discusses why some sectors were eventually left out of the standards. Tensions and public disagreements between the agencies that created Sphere are discussed, along with the manner in which the chosen working processes contributed to the successful publication of the Sphere standards. We show how the process of policy formulation, which led up to the publication of the first edition of the Sphere standards, was as dependent upon the ability of the project team to work opportunistically as it was upon the application of agency principles. Finally the paper reflects upon the success of Sphere and lessons that can be learned from this early Sphere process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Walker, Susan Purdin. 2004. Birthing Sphere.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2004.00246.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Altruistic living kidney donation challenges psychosocial research and policy: a response to previous articles.

BACKGROUND: Policies with respect to altruistic living kidney donation to strangers (both nondirected and directed donation) should, in addition to medical criteria, preferably be based on valid attitude research data. However, deciding on what data are relevant is a normative issue. The challenge for both research and policy making is to bring together empirical and normative issues. METHODS: By comparing two recent surveys, the authors shed light on the complex methodologic and ethical questions surrounding altruistic living kidney donation. RESULTS: The authors found that the main methodologic issues were the distinction between the willingness to donate and the acceptability of the offer, the difference between public attitudes observed in surveys ("facts") and well-considered moral judgments ("norms"), and biases caused by a misperception of central moral concepts (e.g., discrimination and injustice). The authors argue that transplantation centers have a good case for applying or initiating altruistic living donation programs. Centers should seek to influence public attitudes if these attitudes are shown to be biased by prejudice and misunderstanding. CONCLUSIONS: The authors advocate an interaction between research and policy making. Social research can best influence transplantation policies in altruistic living donation by in-depth interviews into the complicated background beliefs underlying personal preferences. In addition, the public should be encouraged to judge the immanent issues in a morally responsible way. In the end, a fair balance should be established between the impartial requirements of social justice and the partial motivations of individuals involved in altruistic living donation. Although discriminatory acts should be rejected categorically, donation policies should be willing to consider, support, and accept motivations based on personal loyalties.

Altruism↗