ReviewJournal of medical ethics2001
Disability and difference: balancing social and physical constructions.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of hope for health professionals in rehabilitation: A qualitative study on unfavorable prognosis communication.PloS one · 2019Article
- The ethicist as language czar, or cop: "end of life" v. "ending life".HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2013Article
- Eugenics and the genetic challenge, again: all dressed up and just everywhere to go.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2011Article
- Looking for the meaning of dignity in the Bioethics Convention and the Cloning Protocol.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2005Article
- The challenge of Terri Schiavo: lessons for bioethics.Journal of medical ethics · 2005Article
- One principle and three fallacies of disability studies.Journal of medical ethics · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The world of disability theory is currently divided between those who insist it reflects a physical fact affecting life quality and those who believe disability is defined by social prejudice. Despite a dialogue spanning bioethical, medical and social scientific literatures the differences between opposing views remains persistent. The result is similar to a figure-ground paradox in which one can see only part of a picture at any moment. This paper attempts to find areas of commonality between the opposing camps, and thus to rearrange the figures of the paradox at a fundamental level. The purpose is first to identify areas in which common ground can be achieved, and secondarily, to clarify the areas in which disagreement continues. While a general and unified theory of physical difference/disability is beyond the scope of this paper the result may advance that general goal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.