ABSTRACT
The terms personalised or individualised medicine advertised and promoted by German (for example, https://www.gesundheitsforschung-bmbf.de" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://www.gesundheitsforschung-bmbf.de/) and international (for example, https://www.p-medizine.eu" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://www.p-medizine.eu/) research programmes, seem to be the biomedical buzzwords of the twenty-first century (Hayes, 2010; Langanke et al., 2012). The future differentiation of patients with regard to their response to treatment (for example, on the basis of their pharmacogenetic profile or their gene expression) is an essential aim. These terms are frequently described as misleading (Schleidgen et al., 2013; see also Chapter 1, this volume). Therefore, justifiably, it was proposed to use the term stratified medicine (Hüsing et al., 2008). However, this has thus far not become prevalent in academic or public discourse. In addition, there are ethical reasons why it is potentially useful to continue using the term personalised medicine, as the use of this term offers the possibility not only to assume the favoured aims as set by biomedicine, but also to critically question the practice regarding its personalisation and, thus, its patient-centredness and, furthermore, to add new objectives (SAMW, 2012; Deutscher Ethikrat, 2013).
