ReviewJournal of medical ethics2006
Are patients morally responsible for their errors?
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Adolescents and Parents See Their Moral Responsibilities With Regard to Adolescents Using Alcohol-A Deductive Secondary Analysis.The Journal of school health · 2023Article
- Development and Initial Validity of the Patients' Literacy Scale Among Outpatients in Hangzhou City, China.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Ensuring Risk Awareness of Vulnerable Patients in the Post-Montgomery Era: Treading a Fine Line.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- The convivial and the pastoral in patient-doctor relationships: a multi-country study of patient stories of care, choice and medical authority in cancer diagnostic processes.Sociology of health & illness · 2020Article
- The many meanings of autism: conceptual and ethical reflections.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2019Review
- Patients have unwritten duties: experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes in health care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- What attributes of patients affect their involvement in safety? A key opinion leaders' perspective.BMJ open · 2013Article
- A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Do patients have duties?Journal of medical ethics · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amid neglect of patients' contribution to error has been a failure to ask whether patients are morally responsible for their errors. This paper aims to help answer this question and so define a worthy response to the errors. Recent work on medical errors has emphasised system deficiencies and discouraged finding people to blame. We scrutinize this approach from an incompatibilist, agent causation position and draw on Hart's taxonomy of four senses of moral responsibility: role responsibility; capacity responsibility; causal responsibility; and liability responsibility. Each sense is shown to contribute to an overall theoretical judgment as to whether patients are morally responsible for their errors (and success in avoiding them). Though how to weight the senses is unclear, patients appear to be morally responsible for the avoidable errors they make, contribute to or can influence.
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.