ArticleBMC medical ethics2006
Global bioethics -- myth or reality?
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2006. 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.
- What Does It Mean for a Case to be 'Local'?: the Importance of Local Relevance and Resonance for Bioethics Education in the Asia-Pacific Region.Asian bioethics review · 2020Article
- A Multifaceted Approach Is Needed to Respond to the Plight of Bioethicists in Accessing Literature.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2017Article
- Experiencing everyday ethics in context: frontline data collectors perspectives and practices of bioethics.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2013Article
- Global bioethics and communitarianism.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2011Article
- Self and other in global bioethics: critical hermeneutics and the example of different death concepts.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2009Review
- Living apart together: reflections on bioethics, global inequality and social justice.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2008Article
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
backgroundThere has been debate on whether a global or unified field of bioethics exists. If bioethics is a unified global field, or at the very least a closely shared way of thinking, then we should expect bioethicists to behave the same way in their academic activities anywhere in the world. This paper investigates whether there is a 'global bioethics' in the sense of a unified academic community.
methodsTo address this question, we study the web-linking patterns of bioethics institutions, the citation patterns of bioethics papers and the buying patterns of bioethics books.
resultsAll three analyses indicate that there are geographical and institutional differences in the academic behavior of bioethicists and bioethics institutions.
conclusionThese exploratory studies support the position that there is no unified global field of bioethics. This is a problem if the only reason is parochialism. But these regional differences are probably of less concern if one notices that bioethics comes in many not always mutually understandable dialects.
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.